Loading...
06-28-1978 " ". u Q CITY OF EDGEWATER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PUBLIC HEARING June 28, 1978 Chairman Millard called the meeting and Public Hearing of the Edgewater Board of Adjustments to order at 7:00 P.M. in the ,City Clerk's office. ROLL CALL Mr. Fenske Mr. Gnau Mr. Lupi nek Mr. Millard Mr. Poland Present Present Present Present Present Also present at the hearing were: Mr. Shawver Mr. and Mrs. E.G. Wells Mrs. Oliver Mr. and Mrs. Rettig Miss Rettig Mr. Gri ffi th Mr. Murphv Mr. Loeffler Mr. Diamond Chairman Millard announced that Mr. Asting had resigned from the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Clarence Gnau has been appointed by the City Council to serve the remainder of Mr. Asting's term. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of the last Board of Adjustments meeting. The minutes were approved. Chairman Millard gave a brief explanation of the procedure that is followed at these public hearings. I The first hearing before the Board was the request from Mr. Milan Griffith for a variance to build a duplex in an R-3 area. This case had been recessed from an earlier hearing. The Board received letters from the Zoning Board and the Planning Board that stated that Mr. Griffith meets all criteria specified in 880. Both Boards agree that Mr. Griffith should be granted a special exception under Ordinance 1009 which amended 880 to allow duplexes in R-3. Mr. Griffith must meet the conditions specified in 1009, Section 2. "That a Duplex may be permitted as a special exception if there is an existing duplex within 50 feet, including rights-of-way, of the proposed duplex." The Board of Adjustment members discussed the intent of the City Council concerning the 50 foot condition. Mr. Murphy, Building Official, said it was his interpretation that the Council meant from building to building not from property line to property line. There were no guidelines set for yard requirements on ~ R-3 duplex buildings so it could be assumed that these requirements are the same as R-4 and R-5. The Board agreed that since the Council did not set yard standards, R-3 yard requirements should be met. G Mr. Griffith told the Board that he was planning to enlarge the proposed duplex and have a 3 bedroom house on one side and a two bedroom house on the other. , ~ ~ ~ Chairman Millard said that he would vote for minimum R-3 set backs, permitting a duplex to be built according to Ordinance 1009. Mr. Griffith would be granted a special exception,as specified in Ordinance 1009 and approved by the Zoning and the Planning Boards, and the right to build the proposed duplex within the conditions of Ordinance 1009. Mr. Griffith must at least meet the minimum R-3 residential requirements for setbacks. The Board of Adjustments agreed and the roll call vote was 5-0. Chairman Millard will send a memo to the City Council advising them of the Board's decision in this case. If the City Council accepts the Board's recommendation, they will authorize a resolution granting Mr. Griffith permission to build as specified by the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Griffith will be notified when and if this resolution becomes effective. The other case pending before the Board was Mr. Kenneth May of Coronado Paint Company who had requested a variance to make an addition to an existing building. Mr. May has revised his plans to meet the requirements set by the Building Department and has withdrawn his application. The case is closed. The next hearing before the Board was an application from Mrs. Julia Oliver, 123 Neptune Drive, ~ _ for a variance to build a carport and utility shed on her property. Chairman Millard pointed out that there seemed to be some discrepancy between the figures in Mrs. Oliver's plot plan and the dimensions measured by the Board of Adjustments. There was at least 2 ft. less to the propertyrline than was shown on Mrs. Oliver's proposed plan. The Board also questioned why Mrs. Oliver had enclosed her garage. Mrs. Oliver stated that her husband had been very ill and it was necessary for her-children to live with them and the garage had been remodeled into an extra bedroom. She had kept a lot of tools in the garage and now had no place to put them which is why she needs a utliity room. She could probably do without a carport but she believes it would make the property look better. The R-2 yard requirements are a 30 ft. front setback, 20 ft. rear and 10 ft. side except on corner lots. At the present time there is about 13 ft.on the side of Mrs. Oliver's house to the lot line. The Board asked if Mrs. Oliver could possibly made an addition to the rear of the house for a utility room or put up a utility shed in back of the house. The Building Department requires that a utility shed, if separate from the house, must be 5 feet away from the house. The suggestion was also made that perhaps Mrs. Oliver could put a utility room next to the screen porch towards the back of the house. The room would be of approximately the same dimensions as the porch. The Board did not feel they could grant Mrs. Oliver a variance to build alongside of her house. There would not be sufficient space between the lot lines. Mr. Wells, a neighbor, said that he objected to a larger driveway being put in because of the water run off onto his property. He was also afraid that even an additional building on the side of Mrs. 01iver1s house would divert more water onto his property. Chairman Millard said that proper drainage in the street should help this problem and that this was up to the Street Dept. The water problem is not created by Mrs. Oliver. The suggestion was made to modify Mrs. Oliver's original plan to permit a narrow toolroom,running east and west, next to the existing screened porch on back. The measurements would be approximately 8' x 12~ The building should not aggrevate the water flow. 2 ... " \. . u u Chairman Millard asked Mr. Wells if he had any valid objection to this revised plan. Mr. Wells still felt there would be some deviation of the water flow. Mr. Poland pointed out that Mrs. Oliver would have 7 foot side setback and 15 foot rear setback to the lot lines. She would still need a variance. The Board voted to permit Mrs. Oliver to byild a utility room adjacent to the screened porch,measuring 8 x 10:,in the style and architecture of the existing house. The vote was 5-0. Chairman Millard told Mrs. Oliver that the City Council would receive the Board's recommendation and if they accepted it, a resolution would be passed granting Mrs. Oliver permission to build a utility shed. The next hearing was to consider an application by Mr. Fagg . Shawve~ Casa El Toro Bar on the corner of Boston Road and U.S. 1. Mr. Shauver is asking for a variance to build a thirty by fifty foot addition on the South side of the existing building. Chairman Millard asked the Building Official to explain why they were not able to approve the building plan. Mr. Murphy said that the request was denied by the Building Department because it does not comply with any of the setback provisions of the code. The Building is in B-4 zone. The setbacks are front yard 30 ft. side yard 35 ft. and rear setback of 25 ft. This area is in the process of being rezoned B-3. Mr. Poland read from Section 400.03 of 880 concerning non-conforming structures. "Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of Ordinance 880 (which was 1974), such structure may be continued as long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: a. no such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in any way which increases its non-conformity but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its non-conformity. Mr. Millard pointed out that no one had appeared to object to any addition to the bar and also the local police records show that this is a well run business with very few problems as far as the police are concerned. He asked if Mr.' Shawver might not consider an addition to the rear of the building where he could conform to setbacks. There is no evidence of unnecessary hardship and a variation of the original proposal could be considered reasonable use of the property. Mr. Shawver did not want to change his original proposal. Mr. Poland called the Board's attention to Section 401.00, Repairs and Maintenance, which states that on any non-conforming structure or any par~ of.the structure containing a non-conforming use, repairs and modernlzatlon are permitted provided that the cubic content existing when it became non-conforming shall not be increaserl. Mr. Poland said that according to that provision in 880 Mr.'Sh~~v~r cannot add on to his building. Mr. Shawver's request for a variance was denied by the Board. The vote was 5-0. Chairman Millard said the Board will send their recommendation to the C 0 u n c i 1 and Mr. S h a wv e r has the rig h t to a p pea 1 tot h e C 0 u n c i 1 . There was no further business before the Board. The meeting was adjourned. Minutes submitted by: Nancy Blazi ~ o CITY OF EDGEWATER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PUBLIC HEARING June 28, 1978 Chairman Millard called the meeting and Public Hearing of the Edgewater Board of Adjustments to order at 7:00 P.M. in the .City Clerk's office. ROLL CALL Mr. Fenske Mr. Gnau Mr.'Lupinek Mr. Millard Mr. Poland Present Present Present Present Present Also present at the hearing were: Mr. Shawver Mr. and Mrs. E.G. Wells Mrs. Oliver Mr. and Mrs. Rettig Miss Rettig Mr. Griffith Mr. Murphv Mr. Loeffler Mr. Diamond Chairman Millard announced that Mr. Asting had resigned from the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Clarence Gnau has been appointed by the City Council to serve the remainder of Mr. Asting's term. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of the last Board of Adjustments meeting. The minutes were approved. Chairman Millard gave a brief explanation of,the procedure that is followed at these public hearings. I The first hearing before the Board was the request from Mr. Milan Griffith for a variance to build a duplex in an R-3 area. This case had been recessed from an earlier hearing. The Board received letters from the Zoning Board and the Planning Board that stated that Mr. Griffith meets all criteria specified in 880. Both Boards agree that Mr. Griffith should be granted a special exception under Ordinance 1009 which amended 880 to allow duplexes in R-3. Mr. Griffith must meet the conditions specified in 1009, Section 2. IIThat a Duplex may be permitted as a special exception if there is an existing duplex within 50 feet, including rights-of-way, of the proposed duplex.1I The Board of Adjustment members discussed the intent of the City Council concer~ing the 50 foot condition. Mr. Murphy, Building Official, said it was his interpretation that the Council meant from building to building not from property line to property line. There were no guidelines set for yard requirements on R-3 duplex buildings so it could be assumed that these requirements are the same as R-4 and R-5. The Board agreed that since the Council did not set yard standards, R-3 yard requirements should be met. (, Mr. Griffith told the Board that he was planning to enlarge the proposed duplex and have a 3 bedroom house on one side and a two bedroom house on the other. 1 Q o Chairman Millard said that he would vote for minimum R-3 set backs, permitting a duplex to be built according to Ordinance 1009. Mr. Griffith would be granted a special exception,as specified in Ordinance 1009 and approved by the Zoning and the Planning Boards, and the right to build the proposed duplex within the conditions of Ordinance 1009. Mr. Griffith must at least meet the minimum R-3 residential requirements for setbacks. The Board of Adjustments agreed and the roll call vote was 5-0. 'Chairman Millard will send a memo to the City Council advising them of the Board's decision in this case. If the City Council rY accepts the Board's recommendation, they will authorize a resolution granting Mr. Griffith permission to build as specified by the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Griffith will be notified when and if this resolution becomes effective. The other case pending before the Board was Mr. Kenneth May of Coronado Paint Company who had requested a variance to make an addition to an existing building. Mr. May has revised his plans to meet the requirements set by the Building Department and has withdrawn his application. The case is closed. The next hearing before the Board was an application from Mrs. Julia Oliver, 123 Neptune Drive, _... for a variance to build a carport and utility shed on her property. Chairman Millard pointed out that there seemed to be some discrepancy between the figures in Mrs. Oliver's plot plan and the dimensions measured by the Board of Adjustments. There was at least 2 ft. less to the propertyrline than was shown on Mrs. Oliver's proposed plan. The Board also questioned why Mrs. Oliver had enclosed her garage. Mrs. Oliver stated that her husband had been very ill and it was necessary for her.children to live with them and the garage had been remodeled into an extra bedroom. She had kept a lot of tools in the garage and now had no place to put them which is why she needs a utliity room. She could probably do without a carport but she believes it would make the property look better. The R-2 yard requirements are a 30 ft. front setback, 20 ft. rear and 10 ft. side except on corner lots. At the present time there is about 13 ft.on the side of Mrs. Oliver's house to the lot line. The Board asked if Mrs. Oliver could possibly made an addition to the rear of the house for a utility room or put up a utility shed in back of the house. ~ The Building Department requires that a utility shed, if separate from the house, must be 5 feet away from the house. The suggestion was also made that perhaps Mrs. Oliver could put a utility room next to the screen porch towards the back of the house. The room would be of approximately the same dimensions as the porch. The Board did not feel they could grant Mrs. Oliver a variance to build alongside of her house. There would not be sufficient space between the lot lines. Mr. Wells, a neighbor, said that he objected to a larger driveway being put in because of the water run off onto his property. He was also afraid that even an additional building on the side of Mrs. Oliver's house would divert more water onto his property. Chairman Millard said that proper drainage in the street should help this problem and that this was up to the Street Dept. The water problem is not created by Mrs. Oliver. - The suggestion was made to modify Mrs. Oliver's original p1an to permit a narrow toolroom,running east and west, next to the existing screened porch on back. The measurements would be approximately S'x 12~ The building should not aggrevate the water flow. 2 r' ' I o Q Chairman Millard asked Mr. Wells if he had any valid objection to this revised plan. Mr. Wells still felt there would be some deviation of the water flow. Mr. Poland pointed out that Mrs. Oliver would have 7 foot side setback and 15 foot rear setback to the lot lines. She would still need a variance. @The Board voted to permit Mrs. Oliver to byild a utility room . adjacent to the screened porch,measuring 8 x 10:.in the style and architecture of the existing house. The vote was 5-0. ~ Chairman Millard told Mrs. Oliver that the City Council would receive the Board's recommendation and if they accepted it, a resolution would be passed granting Mrs. Oliver permission to build a utility shed. The next hearing was to consider an application by Mr. Fagg . Shawve~ Casa El Taro Bar on the corner of Boston Road and U.S. 1. Mr. Shauver is asking for a variance to build a thirty by fifty foot addition on the South side of the existing building. Chairman Millard asked the Building Official to explain why they were not able to approve the building plan. Mr. Murphy said that the request was denied by the Building Department because it does not comply with any of the setback provisions of the code. The Building is in B-4 zone. The setbacks are front yard 30 ft. side yard 35 ft. and rear setback of 25 ft. This area is in the process of being rezoned B-3. Mr. Poland read from Section 400.03 of 880 concerning non-conforming structures. "Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of Ordinance 880 (which was 1974), such structure may be continued as long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: a. no such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in any way which increases its non-conformity but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its non-conformity. Mr. Millard pointed out that no one had appeared to object to any addition to the bar and also the local police records show t?that this is a well run bu~np~s with ver_Y__Lew_~~lems ~s fa~ L as the police are co~Pd-.- He asked if Mr.' Shawver might not consider an addition to the rear of the building where he could conform to setbacks. There is no evidence of unnecessary hardship and a variation of the original proposal could be considered reasonable use of the property. Mr. Shawver did not want to change his original proposal. Mr. Poland called the Board's attention to Section 401.00, Repairs and Maintenance, which states that on any non-conforming structure or any part of the structure containing a non-conforming use, repairs and modernization are permitted provided that the cubic content existing when it became non-conforming shall not be increased. Mr. Poland said that according to that provision in 880 Mr. 'Sha~ver cannot add on to his building. ~ Mr. Shawver's request for a variance was denied by the Board. The vote was 5-0. ,Chairman Millard said the Board will send their recommendation to the -t C 0 u n c i 1 and Mr. S n a wv e r has the rig h t to a p pea 1 tot h e C 0 u n c i 1 . There was no further business before the Board. The meeting was adjourned. Minutes submitted by: Nancy Blazi