08/01/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

indicated it is a requirement to have either black top or cement. He asked if the applicant had a time ' frame for conforming to code on the driveway. Mr. Weber indicated he would like to replace the entire driveway but he would not be able to do it this year. Mr. Maloney suggested he have it done within a year. Mr. Maloney asked about garage drainage. Mr. Weber indicated he will have gutters. Mr. Maloney said the variance for a gravel driveway will be amended to indicate the applicant has a one year period to pave it. Mr. Kremzar asked if Mr. Weber needs the extra 22 ft. across. Mr. Weber said that will make it easier to get in and out oi cars. Ivirs. Sergi asked if he considered being too deep as opposed to too wide. Mr. Weber indicated he was going for the width because it would be easier to get out of the car. She asked if he could build in front of the existing gar-age since the single garage is just used for storage. They referred to the diagram. Mr. Weber indicated having the small garage behind the new one would put it closer to the house. Mrs. Sergi pointed out the way it is drawn up the garage will take up most of his yard with the exception of about 14 ft. J. Maloney made a motion to grant Denriis Weber of 3384 West 231't St. his request for variance (1123.12), which consists of an addition to existing detached garage and that the following variances be granted as amended: A special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02). Note: Existing garage is 3 ft. from side yard setback, code requires 5 ft. . 1. A 30 square foot variance for accessory structures exceeding 20% rear yard coverage (code permits 690 square ft., applicant shows 720 square ft.), section (1135.02 (d)(2)). 2. A variance for installing a gravel access driveway to new garage addition (code requires concrete or bituminous concrete pavement, applicant shows gravel), section (1163.14 (a)). The applicant has one year to have the driveway paved according to code. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1165.02), (1135.02 (d)(2)), (1163.11 (a)). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar. Roll call on the motion: W. Kremzar, J. Konold, J. Maloney; Yes, and N. Sergi; No. 1V?otion Carried. Variances Granted as amended. 8. David Lusardo; 23186 Summerland (WRI)-2) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of building a home. The following variance is requested: 1. An 11 foot variance for front yard setback (code requires 50 ft., applicant shows 39 ft.) Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.06 (a)). Chairinan Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. David Lusardo, and neighbors John Skerritt and David Budny, came forward to be sworn in. 1V1r. Lusardo explained that they purchased a 50 ft. wide lot which had a public sewer running through it. An easement was never established when the land was vacated by the city and sold off back in the 1960's. He said upon locating the sewer, they found they lost 22 ft. of the yard to the sewer easement and the land on the other side of that easement. They then purchased 20 ft. from the adjoining neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Lancaster, and consolidated the land into a new lot. They are still being restricted because they lose 22 ft. on the one side with the sewer easement. The designer of the new home, in order to facilitate an attached garage, has to place it in front of the home. With the building line at 50 ft., which only exists on this lot on the street, the garage is in front, which pushes the home back further and pushes the patio and deck further back as well. They are asking for a variance to bring the home forward in common frontage with the neighborhood homes. Most of the homes, which are older, sit closer to the street. This facilitates bringing the deck area forward along with the home so the residents can be in the back yard. Mr. Skerritt said he is the next door neighbor and he just wanted to see plans for this lot. His main concern is that the house fits in with the rest of the neighborhood. NIr. Budny indicated his issue is with the continuity of the neighborhood. He said Mr. Lusardo's explanation was fine. If it brings it in line with the other homes that is all right. He has serious concerns about a new home being built among houses that are 50-60 years old. Continuity on a dead end street in a neighborhood that is well 6