07/10/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Margevicius, the Contractor, Mr. & Mrs. Houser, Mr. & Mrs. Vento, Mr. Molls, neighbors came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Margevicius indicated that the homeowner wishes to expand her non- conforming home. The addition will not encroach any further then what the building currently does. Mrs. Romano would like to convert the one-car garage into a two-car garage and add a computer room to the home. Mr. Kremzar questioned if there would also be a deck added. Mr. Margevicius indicated that there was currently a deck in the rear yard. The neighbors commented that they did not know what was going on. The contractor reviewed the blueprints with the neighbors. Mr. Molls questioned tlie distance of the deck to the property line. He is concerned about the size of the deck. Mr. Margevicius indicated that the existing deck is 45 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Maloney commented that the deck encroached by 5-feet. Mr. Margevicius would not object to moving the deck so that it does not go further than 50-feet if the homeowner does not object. The neighbors are concerned, because the owner did not talk to any of them first. Mr. Rymarczyk commented that the variance required is pre-existing the addition is not adding additional distance. The proposal needs a special permit to add to non-confortning building as well. The building wall will be 60 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Molls questioned the deck again. Mr. Rymarczyk informed Mr. Molls that the deck was not an issue. Mrs. Vento suggested that if the addition and deck were allowed there would be no backyard. Mr. Vento questioned the owner's fence, which faces his front yard. He questioned if any board members visited the site. Mr. Kremzar informed Mr. Vento all board members present visited the site. Mr. Maloney commented that the board would be addressing the addition to the home and garage only. The board could request that the deck be turned. Mr. O'Malley read 1165.02 aloud which addresses non-conforming buildings and uses. The existing building is a non-conforming home and only has a 16.5-foot side yard setback. A non-conforming buildina will not be added too or enlarged unless the addition and original buildings are made to conform to the setback. A non-conforming building can be altered, modernized, or enlarged provided the alterations and enlargeinents conform to all of the setbacks, yard coverage and height regulations. In addition, a special permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals as covered in 1123.11 is required. Mr. O'Malley read allowed chapter 1123.11. The approvals of a special permit for a particular use shall not lie granted if the lioarcl firids ariy of ttie followirig conditioris: 1). The public, peace, health, safety, morals or convenience will be jeopardized or actively affected. 2). The use value, development or enjoyment of neighboring property would be adversely affected. Alternatively, the health or safety of the person residing or working in the neighborhood would be adversely affected. 3). Public or private nuisance would likely be created by reason of noise, odor, smoke, fire, vibration or objectionable lights. 4). Traffic or safety hazards would be created. 5). The combination or accumulation of uses of the same nature and close proximity or in the same neighborhood would adversely affect the public peace, health, safety, morals, welfare or convenience affecting neighboring property. Alternatively, the proposed use would not comply with other provisions or standards covered in the code. The chapter on non-conforming restricts the expansion of non-conforming buildings unless the alterations or entire property is brought into compliance. A special permit is also required. No further comments were made. W. Kremzar motioned to grant Bernie Romano of 3896 Walter Road his request -for variance (1123.12)which consists of an addition and that the following variance is granted: A 4 foot variance for an addition not conforming to side setback requirements (code requires 25 feet, applicant shows 21 feet). Note: Existing building is non-conforming. It has only a 16.5-ft. side setback. Code requires 25 ft. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sectiori (1135.06 (b)). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney and unanimously denied. Variance IDeneed. - Mr. Margevicius questioned if the request was turned down because the existing setback is not at 25- feet. Mr. O'Malley commented that was the way he understood it. Nli-. Margevicius questioned if any addition has to be within code and the original structure brought into code. Mr. O'Malley 5