03/25/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v NOTE: 1). The proposed 0.2549 acre parcel will NOT conform to the frontage requirements of the Zoning Code. The required frontage is 70 feet, and the proposed frontage will be 61.17 feet. The proposed 0.2549 acre parcel will conform to the depth and area requirements of the Zoning Code. 2). The proposed 2.9864 acre parcel will conform to the depth, frontage and area requirements of the Zoning Code. 3). The proposed 0.2549 acre parcel will no longer have a garage after the lot is split. A minimum one-car garage is required by the building code. Mr. Spalding reviewed the request and called all interested parties forward. Mr. Dominic Ruccella, the property owner, came forward. He indicated his intention is to split the lot so he can improve the existing home, sell it off, and end up with a build-able lot for himself. They tried to lay it out so that the side lot clearances conform to the code. The existing garage for that property would be replaced with a 2-car garage, as a 1-car garage is insufficient for reselling the property. Mr. Ruccella said he believes the plans indicate all the conditions that they intend to accomplish. Mr. Spalding mentioned that the plans indicate the smaller parcel will no longer have a garage after the lot is split. Mr. Ruccella said it will be replaced. It will be on the larger lot. It will be replaced in a formal agreement. Mr. Allan asked what his plan is for the remaining 3 acre parcel. Mr. Ruccella replied he would build a home on it for himself. Mrs. O'Rourke asked if it would be on the back of the lot. Mr. Ruccella said it would be set back but not on the back of the lot. He said he believes there is some frontage lost because of the state easement. It is shown on the new plot plan. Mr. Spalding asked if the existing driveway will be modified and, if so, how will it be done. Mr. Ruccella said there is a turn around and that is the only part that will be on the split line. It has to be extended. He proposes to put a garage right behind the existing house with a steep gable to match the house and they will have to bring the asphalt up to the garage, with an apron. He said the garage can be put in straight but it depends on the Building Department requirements. The turn room is 60 feet wide. The side lot clearance he believes is 5 or 8 feet minimum, so there is another 22 or 24 feet. There will be 30 feet to come in and swing, and if not, it will be a straight-in type garage. Mr. O'Malley said he would like to alert the board to code section 1101.07(d), which talks about approvals of minor subdivisions such as this. When you have a lot that is of insufficient size such as this, it requires that it goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance, for the short frontage. The balance of the planning considerations that are involved in this lot split remain with the Planning Commission. This is not too unlike other lot splits that the board has considered where by creating a new lot line you would in effect create a non-conformity that is an existing condition. If you create this lot line, you will have a garage that is all by itself on a parcel, which creates a non-conformity and at the same time creating a non-conformity of a house without a garage. You can't really guarantee and attach to a lot split promises of what might be built or demolished. As the board has seen in the past, sometimes these lot splits are reviewed in conjunction with development plans so they know for a fact they are getting one garage demolished and another one built in conjunction with the lot split being done. Once they grant the lot split, they create the non-conforming conditions and it's done. Mr. Spalding said until they have plans for the whole development, they are opening Pandora's Box. Mr. O'Malley said they may not get to that point if the Board of Zoning Appeals refuses to grant a variance to create a non-conforming lot as far as frontage. Mr. Spaldicag asked Mr. Ruccella if he has plans for the other lot. Mr. Ruccella indicated he does not have plans now. His hope is to build and if it doesn't work out he will be selling the lot off. As far as the changes that are insinuated on the plans, they are part of the request for lot split and they also indicate that a new garage will be built. If the lot is split, it should be conditional that he demolish the old garage and replace it with a new one on the new split lot. Mr. Spalding asked Mr. O'Malley if the board can make it conditional. Mr. O'Mabley said the board can make it conditional all they want but once the plat is created and filed, the lot is created and it's done. There is a difference between a development plan and a plat that is recorded with the county. With a plat, there is no concern if there is a garage on one side of the line or the other. For purposes of the county and the creation of lots, they are not concerned with compliance with the zoning code and where the garage is or is not. Short of plans to build another house on the larger parcel, that is not what the board is concerned about. The planning concern is the demolition 3