BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
February 24, 1994
Present: Dan Bellman, Ashlin Caravana, Gilbert Krone, Chuck
Meteer, Ron Winters
Also Present: Doug Tailford, Zoning Inspector
Visitors: Daniel C. Bonar, 237 West Elm
Minutes: The minutes of January 27, 1994, WERE APPROVED AS
Citizen Comments: None
Daniel C. and Martha Bonar, 237 West Elm
The Bonars wish to replace the garage with a new garage with
two-story addition for a bedroom and family room attached to the
house. The proposed replacement will be set back 3' from the
rear lot line and 16" from the side lot line, so a variance of 7'
is required for the rear and 8' 8" from the side lot line. The
lot coverage is 39. 95%,including house, garage, addition, and
breezeway, or 48. 9%with driveway. Mr. Bonar indicated he has
attempted for a long time to achieve the most efficient plans
possible, while adhering to the zoning regulations. It is not
feasible to move the garage and addition anywhere else on the
property, he said. Mr. Bonar bought a 1' strip from the neighbor
so that the garage would not overhang his property. The
neighbors were contacted; a positive affirmation was received
from the next door neighbor, and other neighbors have granted
Mr. Bellman was concerned at the building' s close proximity
to the property line.
Ms. Caravana applied their needs to the current ordinance
document: 1) Are there special circumstances peculiar to the
land or structure which are not applicable to other houses in the
area? An old garage already exists, and they are moving it in a
little bit. The Bonars are trying to design a plan to preclude a
variance and still minimize size of structure to accomplish his
needs. The character of the neighborhood shows many houses close
2) Would a literal interpretation of the provisions of the
zoning ordinance deprive applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same area? Since other homes in the area
are close to the lot lines, denying him his request would be
depriving him of improving his garage and of what others already
3) Do the special circumstances result from actions of the
applicant? No, they did not create the situation; when these
houses were built, it was standard policy to position them rather
close together, and there was no zoning code. The upgrading of
garage and appearance of the addition would enhance the
4) Would granting the variance confer to applicant any undue
privilege denied by this ordinance to others in the area? No,
because others in the area enjoy the same privileges the Bonars
5) Would granting the variance adversely affect health,
safety and general welfare of other persons residing or working
in the area? It would be an attractive renovation, and to tear
down an old structure would strengthen the safety factor.
Mr. Bellman was still concerned about building so close to
the property line; Mr. Krone recommended looking at all the
criteria and make a decision on the basis of greater evidence.
Based on these criteria, Mr. Meteer moved to approve the
request for variance from the lot line. Mr. Krone seconded, AND
MOTION WAS APPROVED, 3 ayes and 1 no.
Adjournment: 7: 45 p. m.
Next Meeting: Thursday, March 24, 7 p. m.