5/3/2021 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. A variance for a gravel driveway; code requires driveways to be constructed of cement or asphalt, applicant shows a gravel driveway leading up to a concrete pad in front of the existing garage, Section 1135.02(B)(2)(b). 4. A 15 ft. variance for a driveway extending further than the most distant point of the garage from the access street, code does not permit, Section 1135.02(B)(2)(d). The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing garage and construct a new detached garage with a driveway extension. Code allows garages up to 750 square feet. The applicant proposes 816 square feet. Additionally, the placement of the garage is too close to the side lot line; 5 feet is required and the applicant shows three feet. A portion of the existing drive is concrete and the drive closest to the street is gravel. The applicant proposes to retain the gravel; however, the code requires that any new garage be served by a paved drive. Finally, the applicant intends to place concrete beyond the garage, toward the rear property line. Code does not permit drives to extend beyond the furthest point of the garage. Mr. Barone has lived in the home for 27 years and has a three car wide driveway going to the existing garage. By building the new garage in the same location, he believes it will be more aesthetically pleasing. The additional square footage is requested to have more storage and not have to build an addition later on. He maintains the gravel driveway and there are other gravel driveways in the neighborhood. He would like to buy a boat in the future and the concrete pad proposed on the back of the garage would be used for its storage. Mr. Grusenmeyer explained that gravel driveways are a general ongoing enforcement issue because the defined area tends to expand over time. Ms. Lieber agreed and she did not think there was a practical difficulty preventing the owner from installing a paved driveway. Mr. Barone said that would be 75 feet of concrete that would be needed and it would be an extra cost. An email was received from Patricia Spencer at 4325 Root Road requesting property line confirmation prior to plan approval. Mr. Grusenmeyer explained that the owners will need to identify property pins or establish where the property lines are prior to plan approval. Mr. Papotto asked why the garage could not be shifted over to meet the side yard setback, Mr. Barone said it is proposed where the current garage is to limit vehicle maneuvering and be aesthetically pleasing. He could add a transition to move the garage over to meet the setback. Ms. Barone said they would like to keep the left side of the garage where it is currently to enjoy their backyard. Mr. Allain asked if removing the existing garage would remove the grandfathered status of the gravel driveway. Ms. Lieber said that is true and a new garage must be serviced by a hard surface, not gravel. Mr. Papotto did not think there was a hardship for the side yard setback, especially since the neighbor is concerned about the property lines. He was not opposed to the gravel driveway since there are other gravel driveways in the neighborhood. He understood the additional cost of the additional concrete for the driveway but the applicants were proposing an additional pad in the back. Ms. Patton was concerned about the additional concrete pad and the long term effects of permitting the gravel driveway. She appreciated the need for the concrete pad for storing a boat behind the garage, Mr. Mackey agreed.