05/04/2026 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

noted that, because the property was a corner lot, it effectively had two front yards rather than a traditional backyard. Mr. Ammons made a motion to approve case 426-2026; John and Grace Weglian; 6252 Pebblebrook Ln. seconded by Ms. Galateanu. Motion passed: 5-0 427-2026; James Hanobik; 6397 Barton Rd. The applicant proposed expanding an existing above -ground pool to a 15' x 30' oval pool. Two Case No. 427-2026, James Hanobik, 6397 Barton Road, was presented as a request involving a proposed detached garage. Staff explained that there were two variance requests: a 255 -square - foot variance to allow the total private garage area to exceed the 750 -square -foot maximum, and a variance to allow a detached garage in the front yard, which was not permitted by code. The applicant's existing attached garage was 525 square feet, and the proposed one-story detached garage was 24 feet by 20 feet, or 480 square feet, bringing the total garage area to 1,005 square feet. Mr. Hanobik explained that he needed additional garage space after his mother passed away and her property was being turned back over to HUD. He stated that he had removed vehicles, tools, compressors, engine stands, jack stands, toolboxes, and other equipment from her property and was temporarily storing some items in a storage facility. He explained that his existing attached garage was very limited in space and normally housed his and his wife's vehicles during the winter. The applicant stated that he had explored multiple options with contractors, including attaching an addition to the existing garage and placing a detached garage in the rear yard. He explained that contractors raised concerns about attaching a new structure to the existing brick wall due to standing water, potential settling, possible structural issues, and concerns about roof leakage. He also stated that placing the garage in the rear yard created significant drainage concerns because of the grade of the neighboring property, water runoff, and recurring flooding in the area. Mr. Hanobik described ongoing drainage and flooding issues on the property and surrounding area, including water backing up during heavy rains, sump pumps struggling to discharge, and water accumulating near the house, yard, street, and drainage areas. He stated that, because of these conditions, he was concerned that a rear -yard garage could flood and damage vehicles, tools, and stored items. He explained that contractors identified the proposed front -yard location near the existing turnaround as the most practical location with the fewest drainage concerns. Staff noted that the property was not located in a floodplain or flood zone and asked whether the applicant had spoken with the Service or Engineering Departments about the flooding. Mr. 2