HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 10/01/1986 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 1, 1986 Page Three
Mr. Roberts replied that the posts along the east side of his property, and the
west side of Mr. Elmer's would prevent the cars from going back and forth and to
keep the cars from the car wash from getting close to his building. This was
agreed upon at the last meeting.
Ms. Hintz stated that she was not sure where else the sign could go. Maybe on
the building?
Mr. Roberts replied that putting the sign on the building would take away from
the appearance.
Mr. Lamine stated that the existing sign did not need a variance,
Ms. Hintz stated that Mr. McGee was wondering if we could have a trade -off.
However there is no place to improve the sign location. This is the only legal
or logical place.
Ms. Hintz moved approval of construction of the building with a 10 ft. rear yard
setback. Motion seconded by Mr. Ames. Motion carried 5 -0.
With regard to findings of fact, Ms. Hintz noted that the appeal was reduced
from a 0 ft. setback on the property lines, to a 10 ft, setback on the rear
property line. There has been a clear attempt to work within the Ordinance.
This is a matter of business to construct this type of car wash with the 20 year
history of the business there. A closed structure enhances the situation for
the neighboring businesses. That clearly establishes a basis for granting a
variance to our Code.
Mr. Neu stated that this is a better plan than the last time, with the green
area and the posts next to the abutting property. This is much more of a
concerted effort than the last time when it was an open plan.
Mr. McGee stated that in approving this variance, he first checked the landscaping.
It is important that he is providing it. He is meeting the spirit of the Code
which is calling for setbacks in providing greenery.
II. 1806 WINCHESTER AVENUE Louis Ranieri
Mr. Lamine explained that the appellant is requesting a variance to construct a
detached garage with a 3 ft. side yard setback, a 45 ft. 4 in, front yard setback
from Winchester Avenue, and a 19 ft. 6 in. rear yard setback. The R -1B Single
Family Residence District requires a 7 1/2 ft. minimum side yard setback, a 60 ft.
minimum front yard setback, and a 25 ft. minimum rear yard setback.
Bill Glander, 1002 Mt, Vernon, stated that he was present to represent Mr. Ranieri.
He stated that he needs the garage.
Mr. McGee asked if it could be built and meet the variance?
Mr. Glander replied not with a corner lot because there is not enough setback
from the sidewalk.
Mr. McGee asked if this is the best location?
Mr. Lamine replied yes, it looks like a reasonable proposal to me.
Mr. Kimberly asked if the drive would be coming in straight?
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 1, 1986 Page Four
Mr. Glander replied yes.
Mr. Kimberly asked if he could take it back to 2 1/2 ft. in the corner?
Mr. Lamine replied that the Ordinance requires a 25 ft. setback. He is proposing
19 ft. 6 in,
For the record it should ba noted that Mr. Ranieri was present for the hearing
of this item.
Mr. Adams moved approval of the construction of the detached garage with a 3 ft.
side yard setback, a 45 ft. 4 in. front yard setback from Winchester Avenue, and
a 19 ft. 6 in. rear yard setback. Motion seconded by Mr. Neu. Motion carried 5 -0.
With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Ames stated that it is the owner's right to
have a garage, The property pre -dates the Ordinance and it does not meet the
requirements of the Ordinance. Past precedent has been to approve variances of
this nature.
Mr. Neu stated that with the configuration of a corner lot, there is no other
place to put it. In looking at this, it is very similar to what there is in
about three or four places within a two block radius.
III. 612 GRAND STREET Keith A. Hoppe
Mr. Lamine explained that the appellant is requesting a variance to convert a
single family residence to a two family residence with a 40 ft. wide lot, a 4,640
sq. ft. lot, a 16 ft. front yard setback, and to construct a stairway with a 7 ft.
side yard setback. The R -2 Two Family Residence District requires a 45 ft.
minimum lot width, a 6,000 sq. ft. lot, a 25 ft. minimum front yard setback, and
a 7 1/2 ft. minimum side yard setback. This item was held over from the September
17, 1986 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting because of a 3 to 1 vote.
Keith Hoppe, 612 Grand Street, stated that he cannot altar the lot, and that is
basically the problem.
Mr. McGee stated that his reservation was in allowing the two unit structure
4,640 sq. ft. H2 asked why should the Board vary that?
Mr. Hoppe replied that he did not see everyone improving their house, especially
where this one is. They should consider that it is next to a tavern and the
neighborhood and everything.
Mr. Neu that he was familiar with this house and the former owner. The Past Time
Bar leased property from the original owner, who did the blacktopping. Is that
on your property?
Mr. Hoppe replied that it is his legally.
Mr. Neu asked if he planned to live there.
Mr. Hoppe replied yes. He is proposing to have a drive on one side too. He did
cut off one post on the rear that is his.
Ms. Hintz asked if they had really paved his property?