Loading...
10-13-1983 o Q ....- CITY OF EDGEWATER Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting October 13, 1983 Minutes Chairman Martin called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Wetzel and Roush. Mrs. Martin, Mrs. Murphy, Messrs. Newell, Garthwaite, Also present: Mrs. Taylor, Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Garthwaite made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 8, 1983 and September 22, 1983 meetings. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Murphy and CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Garthwaite suggested the review of the By-Laws be postponed until after the hearing on C. E. Clark. NEW BUSINESS - Application of C. E. Clark for a variance to construct an aluminum and glass enclosure on concrete slab at 1938 S. Riverside Drive. Verification of advertising and posting of the property was established. The secretary reported that there were no letters in the file opposed to the request. She noted that Marianne Boerckel, the adjoining property owner, had submitted a letter advising that she was not opposed to the addition. Mr. Clark explained to the Board that he plans to put a glass enclosure around the French doors in back of his townhouse. He wants to enlarge the present slab that is there and make the enclosure 14 ft. by 16 ft. He plans for a gable roof and it will comply with the present structure and blend in well with the; existing unit. The door will be on the south side of the building; the rest will be glass and screened in. It was pointed out that the required setback is 25 feet, and not 20 feet as is required for a duplex. Therefore, Mr. Clark would need a 14' foot variance instead of a 9' variance. Mr. Garthwaite pointed out that the addition is set over approximately 1-1/2 feet from the adjoining townhouse; this may cause a problem if the adjacent owner also adds on. The members were concerned that the other townhouse owners may wish to add an enclosure also, and these should be in conformity. Mr. Clark advised that there were restrictions in the deed which require that additions, t~im and exteriors conform with the existing building. He believed that his addition was in conformance. He explained that the French doors could not be screened and let the rain blow in. They could not be opened to let air through. He advised that the builder did know of his plans. Mr. Newell was concerned that the application for a variance had been advertised as being a 9 ft. variance when, in fact, Mr. Clark is asking for a 14 ft. variance. Mrs. Kitzler, owner of unit 7, spoke to the Board members. She stated their unit does not abut his unit, but they are opposed to the size of what he proposes to build. She did not believe that the glass and aluminum addition is in conformity with the stucco and timber exterior. She and her husband are concerned about the size of the addition. She added they would not be opposed to the slab being screened in, but felt the glass enclosure constituted an addition. She stated that, for the record, they are opposed to the present design. Mr. Clark explained that with a screened in porch there is dust and dirt blowing in and they would be unable to use it. Mr. Newell asked if the Board would consider granting a 141 variance if the hearing was tabled for proper advertising. Mr. Wetzel pointed out that the property next to the lot is an easement. The members brought out that this request for 141 is over 50 per cent of the setback of 25'. Q o The Board members pointed out that the granting of this variance, and perhaps others in the project would cut down on the open space required by the code. The members reviewed the criteria for granting a variance, Sec. 904.00 of the Code. Re.(a), the members believed the applicant could not meet this criteria, as the circumstances existing are not peculiar to the applicant's land; (b) the members felt they could grant a variance in this district, but not this large a variance; (c) the members agreed the special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant; (d) the board felt that granting of this variance will cause substantial detriment to the public welfare; (e) it was the opinion of the members that granting the variance of 14 feet would constitute a grant of special privilege. Mr. Clark asked the Board members if they would consider allowing a variance of 50 per cent if he changed his request to that. Mr. Garthwaite read the definition of a variance: A modification of, or a deviation from, the regulations of this zoning ordinance which is authorized and approved by the board of adjustment after if finds that the literal application of the provisions of this zoning ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship in the use or development of a specific lot or building. Mr. Clark said that there is no other exit on that side of the building. Mr. Clark said he would be willing to change his request to a 12' variance. Mr. Newell made a motion to table this request until the next regular meeting, at which time a set of the deed restrictions will be provided. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garthwaite. Mr. Newell asked the secretary to check with the City Attorney to see if the request needs to be readvertised. Mr. Newell withdrew his motion and Mr. Garthwaite withdrew his second to reconsider the motion. The members wanted the City Attorney to advise if they have the discretion to determine the amount of a variance, or if there should be a limit to the size granted. Mr. Newell made a motion to table this request until the next regular meeting. Mr. Garthwaite seconded the motion, which CARRIED 6-0. OLD BUSINESS The Board reviewed the By-Laws which had been prepared as a result of the discussion at the last regular meeting. The members suggested that the last word in paragraph 7 be changed from "approval" to "notification". The Board members signed the original copy of the Rules and Regulations, with the understanding that the one change mentionedre. paragraph 7 be made. MISCELLANEOUS Mrs. Martin asked the members to review their copy of the letter from Harold Brown. She remarked that the Code book says that if an applicant does not agree with the decision of the Board of Adjustment it may be taken to Circuit Court. She noted that Mr. Brown says he has additional information. The members felt that if he had additional information he should take it to Circuit Court for their decision. It is the opinion of the Board that they had gone over this request thoroughly. Mr. Brown was informed that he could appeal the decision to Circuit Court. Mrs. Murphy commented that in her opinion it would represent a burden on the public and the board. Mr. Garthwaite made a motion that the Board not rehear the Harold Brown case. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wetzel and CARRIED 6-0. The secretary was advised to write a letter to Mr. Brown advising that it is the decision of the Board of Adjustments that he has had a hearing and a clarification of the decision and it is the unanimous decision of the Board not to rehear the request for a special exception. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor Board of Adjustments, 10/13/83 - 2 -