Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/1/84 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OOARD OF ZONING APPEAIS MINUTES FEE 1, 1984 MEETING PAGE SIX Mr. King informad the appellant that the variance has been granted. He informad the appellant. to obtain. necessazy building peDI1Í ts from the Building Inspector and to =mence construction within 6-IIDnths. III. Appeal of Nick Nebel, agent for Thorras S. Litras, trustee for the property located at 112 W. 14th Avenue, proposes to convert an accesso:ry building into a pr:Lnc~pal building and requests the following variances: (1) 'I'M:> principal buildings on one lot; whereas one principal building per lot is pennitted. (2) A 2' side yard setback exists; whereas a 7 1/2' side yard setback is required. (3) A 2' rear yard setback exists; whereas a 25' rear yard setback is required . Mr. Ebrfurth stated the appellant proposes to convert a renovated accesso:ry building to a principal dwelling unit. Since the Subdivision regulations require 60' at the building line and a 30' street access, Mr. Ehrfurth stated it would not be feasible to split the lot in question. Therefore/ the appellant is requesting two principal buildings on one lot, a 2' existing side yard setback and a 2' existing rear yard setback be allowed. Mr. Nick Nebel stated he is not the official agent for Mr. Litras, but a pro- spective buyer of the property in question. He continued that when he was shown the property by a realtor/ he was ve:ry in;>ressed. Mr. Nebel stated the realtor ÍI1fOJ:!œd him that the accesso:ry building has been lived in for abo1lt 30 years and all that was needed was plUI!1bing and sewer. Mr. Nebel felt the building in question is an unusual one and meets his needs, even if it is SI!B1.l. Mr. NeJ:el indicated he received a call from the property owner behind the accesso:ry building. She was concerned with her grandchildren playing in her yard and possibly disturbing Mr. Nebel. Mr. Nebel stated he informad her this would not be a problem. He continued he is aware he will have soma problems with the Building Inpsector, but he will handle those problems when they arise. Mrs. Hintz inquired when the accesso:ry building was built? Mr. Nebel replied it was built as an accesso:ry building abo1lt 30 years ago. At soma point/ someone started to reIIDdel it to a studio type structure. Hr. Nebel indicated he is not sure of the setbacks because of the snow cover, but they are approximate. Mr. King inquired of Mr. Nebel what his practical difficulty or hardship is in this case? Mr. Nebel replied he has none. Mr. larson inquired of Mr. Ehrfurth if there is any existing clauses that once a structure has been used for a certain period of time/ it can continue that use? Mr. Ehrfurth replied it may be a fact that someone lived in this structure, b11t it cannot be considered a dwelling unit. He continued that it could continue as it has in the past/ with the owner of the entire parcel having the advantage of using the structure for non-è!welling related uses. However, ~~. Ehrfurth reiterated that it is an accesso:ry building and not a dwelling unit. Mr. Goldthwaite inquired if the variances are granted, could Mr. Nebel get sewer and water service to the structure? BOARD OF ZONING APPEAIS MIN!Jl'ES FEE 1, 1984 MEETING PAGE SEVEN ~.;r. Ehrfurth replied yes. Mr. Larson inquired if it would be legal to have the two buildings attached in soma way? Mr. Ehrfurth replied yes. They would have to be connected with a covered walkway or breezeway. Mrs . Hintz inquired of Mr. Nebel if he would rent the house on the front of the lot? Mr. Nebel replied yes. M::>tion by Anne Hintz to IIDve the appeal. M::>tion seconded by Dan Goldthwaite. M::>tion lost 2-3. þ~. King .informad Mr. Nebel his appeal has been denied. He continued that the sane appeal can be heared before the Ebard 3 times in one yard. If Mr. Nebel does not con= with the Ebard's decision, he has the option of taking the case to Circuit Court. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Goldthwaite felt that literal interpretation of the Ordinance would deprive the appellant of an interesting place to live. He did not feel allowing the appeal would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Goldthwaite also felt that special conditions and cirCl.U11Stances exist to the land and structures. Mr. larson stated he concurrs with Mr. Goldthwaite's statement. However, he indicated he is not sure that a hardship exists. TheaPì?€llánt 1ÍåS 'ií1di.c:ated the structure has been occupied as a living unit without p111!!1b.ing for as long as 30 years. Mrs. Hintz stated she cannot justify two principal buildings on one lot, or a 2' rear yard setback when 25' is required. Under the criteria that controls the Board's decisions, Mrs. Hintz did not feel the appeal should be allowed. Mr. Luebke stated he could not see a direct hardship and did not feel the Ebard should add to an existing problem. If plUI!1bing could be connected to the existing lateral, Mr. Luebke indicated he might feel differently. However, Mr. Luebke did not feel that all circumstances in this appeal are ideal if Mr. Nebel should decide to IIDve or sell the property and possibly the structure would no longer be owner occupied. In this case, Mr. Luebke felt several problems could oc=. N. Appeal of Allan SChultz, owner of the vacant corner lot located at the northeast corner of Rosalia Street and WaugoQ Avenue, proposes to construct a single family home and requests the following variance: (1) An 8' rear yard setback is proposed; whereas a 25' rear yard setback is required. At this point, Mr. larson requested to step down fran the Ebard due to a conflict of interest on this appeal.