05/01/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pointed out that the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting indicated Mr. Ruccella will put a house on the lot and it will be set back further so the smaller frontage shouldn't affect it. Mr. Rymarczyk said the applicant is proposing to create a property that will be in violation of the zoning code until a new garage is built. He said that he would be selling a property that would be in violation. He said what if the other party does not agree with building a new garage within the given time period. Mr. Ruccella replied he is the one building the garage. It is his responsibility and it is a sales condition. He said he does have a purchase agreement and can forward it to the building department. Mr. O'Malley said that the Board of Zoning Appeals needs to focus on the issue of the variance that is before the board. This is not a lot split that is presented here. The applicant's intentions to build or sell the lot are not before the board. If the variance is granted on the frontage issue, if the board finds there is a practical difficulty and an area variance is granted, then it goes back to the Planning Commission. If you see the minutes from the Planning Commission, code section 1101.7 deals with property splits. He said the board has conditioned variances in the past and can do so here. He said they can condition the variance on the requirement that the lot with the house is equipped with a garage. And likewise that the lot with an existing garage will have that garage removed. Those would be non-conforming to the code assuming the Planning Commission grants the lot split. He said the Planning Commission will not be able to grant the lot split if the Board of Zoning Appeals denies the variance but once the variance is granted and the conditions are satisfied, it will go back to the Planning Commission. He does not think it is appropriate to depend upon any indication of what may or may not become of this property in the future. It is zoned residential. It could be joined with other properties. He said the board needs to focus on the issue of whether they comfortable in creating a lot that would have less than required frontage. Mr. Kremzar asked the applicant if he could make the lot any wider. Mr. Ruccella said not without corrupting the validity of the value of the other lot. He said the existing dwelling is quite sound and will be around a while. Mrs. Sergi asked for the size of the frontage on the remaining parcel. Mr. Ruccella said it is 70 feet. The other parcel is 61 feet. One conforms and one does not. He said the variance is for the one that does not conform and that has the existing dwelling that is saleable. J. Maloney made a motion to grant Dominic Ruccella, 6691 Stearns Road, his request for variance which consists of a lot split creating a lot narrower than required by the zoning code and that the following variance be granted with the condition that a new garage will be built and the old garage will be removed from the property within 90 days: 1. An 8.83 foot variance for lot width (code requires 70 ft., applicant shows 61.17 ft.). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.05). The motion was seconded by J. Konold and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. 2). Tim & Laura Rankin, 25020 Rainbow Drive Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a permanent lot split of PP# 237-30-016 with lot frontage less than required. The following variance is requested: 1. A special variance for the frontage requirement of 80 feet, (code requires 80', applicant shows 76.17'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.05 (a) (1)). Chairman Maloney tabled the proposal at the close of the meeting, as no representatives were present. 3). Jacqueline Miller, 3161 W. 231: WRD 2 Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of an addition. The following variance is requested: 1. A 12 foot variance for rear yard setback (new 12'x30' addition), (code requires 50', applicant shows 38'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.08 (a)). Chairman 1Vgaloney tabled the proposal at the close of the meeting, as no representatives were present. 2