9/11/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Patton raised a question about the application, specifically noting a garage height greater than 15 feet. Ms. Seeley clarified that there was only one variance sought for the process. She explained that garage height is measured to the mean, not the peak, and in this case. it was around 13 feet. Mr. Mackey commended the applicant's representative for the thoughtful home design on the small lot. He raised concerns about the lots depression. questioning potential groundwater issues during regrading. Ms. Whitman acknowledged not having looked into the matter but expressed a commitment to addressing drainage concerns with proper culverts and pipes and planned to bring the concern to the office. Mr. Rahm moved to approve 23-25091; Benedict/Green: 5661 Wellesley Avenue: seconded by: Mr. Kovach. Board members expressed varied perspectives on the triangular-shaped lot. Some emphasized the owner's rights and entitlements, supported by the city attorney's advice, leading them to favor the variance. Positive remarks were made about the architect's efficient use of space. The intended single-family zoning was highlighted, and the consensus was that approving the variance would enhance the neighborhood. One member raised concerns about the assumption of the variance, emphasizing the importance of due diligence. Despite the sizable variance, the overall sentiment was in favor, considering the tasteful design and the preferable alternative to a vacant lot. Motion Passed: 5-0 23-25148; AndrevvAngrid Lamparyk; 3980 Canterbury Road Representative: Andrew Lamparyk; 3980 Canterbury Ms. Seeley introduced that the proposal consists of a parking pad. Property is zoned A -One Family Residence. The following variances were requested: a variance for a parking pad in a front yard: code allows parking pads in the side or rear yard of a residential lot unless the lot has access to an arterial street, applicant shows a parking pad in the front yard; and a 5 -foot variance for distance of parking pad to property line: code requires a minimum distance of five (5) feet to any property line, applicant shows 0 feet. Mr. Lamparyk was requesting to replace the original driveway dating back to 1960. Noting the increased traffic and the street's transition from a 25 to a 35 mph zone, he aimed to modify the driveway by widening it about three and a half feet. The purpose was to improve safety when pulling out onto Canterbury, especially in the dark, tree -covered area. making it easier to navivate and turn around. The proposed adjustment aimed to enhance visibility and safety. with consideration for parking convenience when visitors. like his daughter. come to the house. Ms. Seeley pointed out that Mr. Lamparyk's presence was due to his efforts to improve the driveway and parking pad on his property. Emphasizing that the changes triggered the need to meet current codes, she clarified the two specific requests related to the parking pad and its proximity to the property line. Acknowledging that the street wasn't considered an arterial one in the code, she reiterated the necessity for compliance with today's regulations.