2/7/2022 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

equipment. Mr. Allain thought the request to add a curb cut and amount of additional concrete is substantial and asked if amother options were considered. Mr. rA[lain did not think allowing, commercial vchicles to be parked in a residential driveway ass a reason to alto%% a larger driteway. He believed Cin' Council has been clear about not allowing additional drivcwa% for commercial uses and thought it would impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Ms. Shukri thought the proposed driveway would be easy to get vehicles out ofwithout hating to mote cars at diRerent times of the day. Mr. Labbad is concerned about vehicles being blocked in the drivewuv b% other vehicles that mac not start. Mr. Allain pointed out that parcel 332-31-090 that was referred to prc%iomh has a wider curb face and wider front card than the applicant s propen%. Mr. Mackcy asked if amvnc in the city has been granted a permanent permit to park on the street. Mr. (iarcau said Nremight parking is not permitted on ill cit% streets. but Iemporap parking permits can be granted through the NOPU. Mr. (iarcau said he was unamnre of anything allm%ing u homeowner to permanently park on the street. Mr. Mackey said the property frontage is about RO feet and the applicants alrcadt have a double-wide drke with four vchicics. I le assumed the applicants proposed driveway would go around the lurpe existing tree. Mrs. Rambo-Ackerman said no communications were received from neighbors for or against the proposal. Mr. Papotto thought there was some space to widen the driveway and add a parking pad, but thought it could look Tike a parking lot. Mr. Papotto described how the driveways alternate on the street so he did not think a circular drive wxmld put t%%o dri%e%vays next to each other. I Ie, also thought a circular driveway could make maneu%ering worse. Mr. Attain was empathetic to the situation but he did not think the additional cars met the standard of hardship. Ile thought there may be another alternative available. Mr. Mackey thought the o%%ners needed to get a better plan lis the vehicles parked regardless ofthe Board's decision. Ile agreed with Mr. Papotto and thought there is room for expanding the driveway in front of the house or to%%ards the property line. Mr. Papotto thought a different proposal could Potentialh still require variances. bill may be better than it %ariance for a second curb cut. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Macken, to approve the following variance for 21- 20783; Riham Labbad; 25831 Tallwood Drive: 1. A variance for a second curb cut, code permits 1 driveway curb per residential lot, applicant shows 2, Section 1135.02(B)(2)(a). Motion denied 0-5. 22-21132; James Laine; 27882 Sanders Lane Representatives: James and Joyce Laine. owners George and Cynthia Bokisa. '_7906 Sanders Lane Proposal consists of a fence. Property is zoned .A -One I untily Residence. L A %ariance to add 14 -gauge wire to a post and rail fence, Section 1369.02 Mr. (ding is applying liir a %ariance to install screen mesh on his existing split rail fence to keep their dogs separated from the neighbors' dugs. the neighbors hate an underground in%isible fence but the dogs have Bollen Through before When Ihcy go outside to walk their docs, all of the dogs get %enc excited when the neighbors' dogs are out because the% do not net along. the permit was applied for in July and the contractor installed the split rail tence in Deeemher. Aller the split rail fence was installed- Mr. Laing added the mesh tenting. Ms. Seeley said a permit %vas issued [or