9/9/2019 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

variance requested to prevent drainage issues for his neighbor. After reviewing the revised plan submitted at the meeting, Ms. Lieber said the applicant would extend the paved driveway 10 feet past the home and leave the existing gravel in front of the garage. Mr. Koch said he received variances for the garage in 2000 but was required to install a paved driveway within one year, which he never had done. He has maintained the gravel driveway but is concerned about drainage onto his neighbor's property when installing the paved driveway. Mr. Russell stated that gravel is not an approved driveway surface. Ms. Lieber said an additional variance is requested since gravel is proposed to remain. Mr. Raig asked about having to re -notify the neighbors based on the change, Mr. Gareau did not think it would be necessary since the gravel surface is existing. Discussion about the previous variances granted, Mr. Gareau believed the Board can add the additional variance to the current request. Mr. Koch requested to keep the gravel because it will cost about $6,000 to do that section of the driveway, in addition to the changes needed to address storm water drainage. The driveway from front of the home to the street will be 10 feet wide and widen to the back of the home to the width of the existing gravel. Mr. Markusic said his house is not far from the garage and he is not concerned with leaving the small area of gravel since he is more concerned with the storm water drainage on the solid surface. Mr. Schumann said the building is unique and he thinks the proposed footprint of the driveway makes sense for the structure. Discussion regarding the proposed plan compared to the initial drawings submitted. Mr. Russell was concerned about permitting a gravel driveway since the previous variance stated the gravel needed to be replaced. Ms. Lieber understood that driveways can be expensive but the Board should not take cost into account when making a decision. She did not object to the driveway expanding behind the home since it would not be very visible from the street, but she was more concerned about the gravel. Mr. Mackey asked the applicant if he was aware that a hard -surfaced driveway was to be installed within one year, Mr. Koch said he was aware at the time. Mr. Koch pointed out that page 7 shows the old concrete drive with a black line showing the asphalt would go from that line to the street so the gravel would extend behind that. Mr. Koch said the existing concrete driveway portion would be replaced with asphalt. Ms. Lieber revised the variances requested to match the new request. Mr. Raig suggested the variances be voted on separately. Mr. Allain believed the tapered driveway has existed for some time but he did not see an issue with granting the footprint variance. Mr. Papotto asked if the gravel extending beyond the proposed footprint would be removed, the applicant said he intends to clean the gravel up as needed. Mr. Papotto did not think leaving the area gravel would be an issue since it is not visible from the street. Mr. Raig thought the gravel driveway has been well maintained. Mr. Gareau pointed out that any gravel areas not noted on the drawing submitted at the meeting are to be removed. Mr. Raig added a note to the drawing stating existing gravel outside of proposed footprint shall be removed and restored. Mr. Raig moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variance as amended for 19-14813; Lee Koch; 5947 Mackenzie Road: 1. A variance for width of driveway serving a detached garage; code allows 12 ft. wide in the front yard and 24 ft. wide in the side and rear yard; applicant shows driveway widening from 10 ft. to 37 ft. in the side and rear yard; Section 1135.02(B)(2)(c). Motion passed 4-0.