05/12/1971 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NGR'Z'H OU4'E;TE_D - FOARD t}F ZONING AP?'E?"LS SpeciaI Meeting held a.t City Ha? 1-- h2ay 12, 1971 - The meeting waa -eal7.er to order at 7: 30 ;:F'.14. beT Cha:irman John Rabexts. Those presQnt: Mesrs. Roberts, Ttzbbs, Schesf,• MrS. Eian Also nrpsent: I•4r. Crundy, BUilc:ing Commissioner l. Appellant: Feodar InkilG, 22976 A1°xELnder Road -Request to incre^.se height of existincr 4' basketweave fence behind house. and garaQe to 6t . Re7uest i.s in violatian of drdina.nce #62-33, Section 1151.04, ience nat to exceed. 41 _ in height. ?'resent: I,ir. Inkila, Mr. Stroud Mr. Tnkil.a exnlained that the fence is not on the lot line - it encloses onlv a. _.r•ortion of the yard. He T,4-i;rthes to add. a iibPrglass panel to the top of the existing 41 bwsketweave fence. Mre Gundy stG.ted that one sicl.e of the :E'Qnce is 9' from the lot line - the rest i-ua11 Iegal. DiscUmsian wG.s. hela. Mr.g. EiRn rnoved t•o gr?nt a variance to -riermit a 61 fence 91 from the E. boundarv Iine 481 long; seconded bv Mr. Scheef a.nd ur_animousIv passeci. ;', A.Dpe1lant: M. Murosi, 2303I i4arion Drive - Recruest £or special pe2_nit to add to non-conforming dwella.ng. RPnuest mac1.e a.E per Ordinance ;rb2-33, E Sec-cion 121311. 02. rresent: A'frs. Ma.rosi, Mr. Gillberg, Mr. Droege, Mr. Meneke It was exnlained tha.t the hause J -s non-eonforming because of setback. The acldition would be brzclt venser like the present structurE. It pointed out that it would be apnxox_- imatel;T ZO' asaay from the dPta.ched gara.ge or_ adjacent ,property )nd that a variance woula be neceCsar°;tr. Nei;hbors in attendance a.sked cauestions abaut thE proroued adclition rynd laolted at the ??lans. 14r. Tubbs movecl to grant a, speci2.I perm? t to a.dd to non-conforming d.welling with the stipul:.tion that the City FnginPer a-nprove the grading prior ta the ti.?.e sail is sDilled on site ana to grc-.nt a varie.nce of 10" on distance between W corner o:.F 2ddition <<nd nei.ghbort u{;arage; secondec1. by Mrs. Fian and Ll?1a?11.TilOU.SISt passed. 3. QDDellant: John McCrone - Reeiuest for zT^xiance on frantaae reruirenientw of 46 sub- Iotc with 70' fronUge in a singTe xesidence ":A" district. Violat? on of Ordinance 1,%2-33, SPCtion 1157.0I whici1 recuires a. minimu.?ri of 80' franta.ge in an "A" area. Ree:uest i:t.ade as per Orc7ina.nce ;''62-3331 Section 1133.13. Presentr Mr. McCrane, Mr. Waterbu?-y of Blo;s-som Lcana Go., Mr. niBenedetto Mr. McCrone explained that this r•ecuest d.if.fers from the one -that -w2s rejectecl by -the Zoning Board on 12/2/7o in that 2?, acres oi Iand :Cronting on porter E'oad rrauld be given to the City. He naid 96400 for the land tha.t woulcl be gisren. This would be done in corwoensatian for reduction in lot Nize on the bauis of the cluster ordinance which stAes that a developer must deed ta the city $5% o:E t'_ne Iand accruing as a, retiult of lot size cteduction from 801 to 70' irantage. Mr. MeCrane c2nnot qua1ify under the cluster ordinance because he does not have enaugh lots but is surrouncled by cluater zoned lots owned by ather deve?opers. He feels that fiince hs is surrounded b;r 70e lotN., he should be -able to have 70' lats aIso. Mr. Waterbury stated tha.t he is not opposed to 701- lo-ts but that he had'to live by terms of the ordinance and that Mr. McCrone' s proposaT cannot comlnlv because he aoesnt t have 100 lotN. He cited manv delays in arder to com* ply and also a$35,060 2i:ft sta.tion that h.ad to be built becau?se Tulr. P•71cCrane's Zand coulr,?n't bs crossedo He askecl for equal.itSt before the law and a1so pointed out that the Iots in their d.eveIopment range frorn. 70' to 811 in ?ridth, Mr. DiBenedetto pointecl out that Mr. McCrone had been given the chance to go in with them but backed out of the dea:t of his awm choosing. Mr. 'ucheef subgestea a meeting wa.th the Planning