8/1/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bourquin explained that Ms. finers house was struck with it falling tree which did extensive damage to the second fluor. roof and front porch. Recenth it come to their realization that the previous owner of the home built the front porch without a permit. I hey would like to re -build the front porch to the original thotprint. Ms. Seeley read the stall comments made by Jeff Grusenmeyer. Building Comnhissinner. the house under consideration for this variance was struck h% a falling tree hvhich did extensive damage to the second floor, root and (tont porch structures. the house is permitted to be reconstructed or repaired in kind, however, the owner desires to alter the porch (using the previous footprint and foundations) and enlarge to a lull second floor which Pre%ioush was onh partial. The dwelling is legollc non -conforming in that the front card does not meet the ?(J' required front yard setback. but is approximately 43' Note that the Owner has provided a photograph showing ST to the sidewalk. but unloramatcly, the sidewalk is well within the right away. A printout Iron the C'nunty (i1S site is attached to illustrate this information. Per I I bi.02. and absent a hnriance to this section, such a non- conforming structure mac not he altered or enlarged unless made to conform to the setbacks. The intention of this section is to encourage or require compliance over time for nonconlbrrnim_ conditions so that they comply with the zoning ordinance and usually other compliant structures in the neighborhood. In this case, as can be seen bc- the printout, there arc other houses to the north that also are similarh non -conforming, which could support such a variance request. Law Director Gareuu and the board members agreed thin this is a vert umtsual circumstance and there was little discussion concerning the variance request. Mr. Rahn moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey to approve the following variances, A variance to enlarge and alter a legal non -conforming dwelling that does not conform to front yard setback requirement; code docs not permit, Section 1165.02(13)(2). Motion Passed 4-0. 22-22478; Dave Holdash/New Creation Builders -4611 Silverdale Road. Proposal oto uarage. Property is zoned B -One Family Residence. The tollowing variance is requested: L A 10 It. hariance for a detachedcurage located too close to a dwelling_ code requires I � li_ applicant allows It.. Section 113�A-2(B)(I)(c). Representatives: Diana Bija, New Creation Builders. Dove I Ioldash. owner. %ts. Seeley stated this it zoning hanance and not a buildinu code the building code docs not state than it garage needs to be attached to the house %fr. Papotw noted that the way the house and the Ion lines are placed it would be hery difficult for the applicant to hake the required fifteen feet. there was little discussion on the variance request. Mr. Rahn moved, seconded M' Ms. Patton to approve the following variances, a 10 ft. a vriance for a detached garage located too close to a dwelling; code requires 15 ft., applicant shows 5 ft., Section 1135.02(B)( I )(c). Motion Passed 441.