03/04/2024 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Seeley stated that this involves a new Home on an empty lot. with a variance request for a three-foot deviation from the code's requirement of 80 feet minimum lot with in the Al family district. She clarified that the lot width is defined as the horizontal distance measured along the front building line and the front building setback line. according to section 1115 definitions. Mr. Crea explained that the plan is to build a 1,465 -square -foot ranch, intended to be on a slab. The house falls three feet short of the city's requirements in the rear. To comply. the house would need to be pulled forward, which would necessitate another variance. Ms. Seeley clarified that there have been three unofficial submittals for the property, all for zoning reviews only. The latest plan showed a first floor area of 1,594 square feet. not 1,400 as previously stated. This avoided the need for an additional variance request. The current variance request is for the front setback line of the home, which measures 77 feet instead of the required 80 feet. constituting a three-foot variance. Mr. Crea apologized for the confusion as he initially thought the issue was with the rear setback, not the front. Mr. Upton's report emphasized the importance of considering individual cases on their own merits. particularly in light of zoning laws that can restrict building opportunities. He highlighted the property owners rights and the permissibility of tree removal with those rights. He advocated forgranting variances. citing the minimal nature of the request and the city's landlocked status. He expressed enthusiastic support for the proposal. Mr. Gareau informed the board members of the standards to which they should follow when considerinu, the variance request. Residents asked questions about the driyew ay. how the house would fit on the property. what the variance request meant. Mr. Papotto allowed the residents and applicants to take a break and discuss the project in more depth so that the residents may have a better understanding of what is before the board at the time. Mr. Rahm moved to recess 22-2024; seconded by Mr. Kovach: all in favor none. opposed. Case was resumed: Residents expressed the need for a clearer visual representation of the proposed house and garage's location on their propert} lines. Mr. Crea shared a topographical dra,�vin�o and explained the positioning of the house relative to their properties. He acknowledged concerns about a 100 -year-old tree overhanging the property and assured that efforts would be made to avoid disturbing it. Additionally. he clarified that the construction would not encroach on neighboring properties' views and that minimal disturbance was planned for the rear of the property. Mr. Upton clarified that the applicant has met all submission requirements and that the board's focus should be solely on the variance for a three-foot setback to build a new single-family horne. He emphasized that the matter at hand does not necessitate and architectural review or a planning commission review. Additionally, he explained that the variance pertains to the width of the lot at the location of the proposed building, and moving the house forward may trigger a variance for the front yard setback. Mr. Rahm moved to approve 22-2024 Amato Homes on Mastick Road: seconded by Mr. Kovach.