BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
October 22, 1998
Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Greg Sharkey,
Members Absent: Eric Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger, Village Planner
Visitors: James and Jill LeVere, Ilkka Aro
Minutes: August 27: Since Ms. Wimberger was absent at the
previous meeting, she had a few corrections to make at this time:
Page 1, Line 12 from bottom should say, Rhonda Southard, next-door
neighbor, asked about the distance from lot lines. She was also
concerned about yard weeds and overgrown foliage. Mr. Jones said
he would clean up that area."
Page 5, Begin the Abraham paragraph with "Mr. Abraham has
requested a zoning interpretation."Change 1145. 03 to 1147. 03 and
delete "of conditional uses."
Page 6, Line 8, change "property" to properly.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THESE MINUTES BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED.
MR. ESSMAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Minutes of September 24: Page 1, paragraph starting with Ms.
Caravana, fix typo in Line 2. Next paragraph,to "tw..o. paved
lanes of sufficient width to comfortably accommodate vehicles moving in opposite directions."
Page 4, Line 4, delete "especially if it were ever expanded." MR ESSMAN MOVED THAT THESE MINUTES BE APPROVE MINUTES AS
AMENDED. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
Citizens Comments: None
James and Jill LeVere, 216 North Granger Street
The applicants are requesting a 1' setback, which equals a 4' variance. Mr. LeVere stated that they would like to extend the drive down the property line to give access to a proposed threec-ar garage. The driveway would make a right angle and would be right on the property line. The sliver of land will be grassed with a burning bush. A dead dogwood tree will have to be removed. Two
ndeoeodrs towiclhlanfagcee ththee sfirteontplaannd toonerewveialll ftahcies tchhaena g-jeo.ke. They will 1/$6.4 changed the plans He said they of the house. so that his son can play more safely in the back carriage He may not have windows in the garage and likes the house style.
A neighbor, Ilkka Aro, said his mother lives next door and has no objection.
Ms. Caravana likes to minimize amount of pavement and thought
12' was excessive. She wanted to make approval contingent upon
project not exceeding 50 per cent of lot coverage.
Mr. Sharkey asked for accurate drawings of the doors facing
the rear and a rough measurement as to how far back the driveway
extends. Mr. LeVere said it was about 25' further. Mr. Sharkey
also would like to add as a condition that applicant round off the
driveway to recapture some of that greenspace on the side. Mr.
LeVere would do that to protect the garage.
Ms. Caravana thought we ought to specify approximately 6' of
greenspace on NE corner. Also, the changes in the plan, even
though they do not change the structure, may need to be revisited
by GPC. This is up to Ms. Wimberger.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS AMENDED
WITH CONDITIONS: (1) DRIVEWAY NOT TO EXCEED 25' FROM EAST END
OF ADDITION; (2) NO LESS THAN 6' WIDE PLANTED AREA ON NORTHEAST
CORNER OF ADDITION BETWEEN FIRST GARAGE BAY AND THE REAR
OF THE ADDITION; 3) NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BACK AREA BE
CURVED TO SOFTEN THE EFFECT; 4) MS. WIMBERGER NEEDS TO BE
SURE THE ENTIRE PROJECT FALLS WITHIN COVERAGE ALLOWANCES. MR.
ESSMAN SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:
A) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure( applicable to other lands s) involved and which are not or structures in the same zoning district. The special circumstance is that the front part of the
driveway already follows this alignment. The sloped lay of the
land affects the driveway, and this is a more logical plan for it to follow.
B) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this
Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. It is not unusual for driveways in athllioswezdo.ning ordinance to be closer to the property line than
C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The existing setback has been there for many years and was not done by the applicant. D) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Granting approval would not give undue privilege. E) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vpaerrsiaonncse.resTidheingcoonrdiwtioornksing owf ithin the vicinity of the proposed approval are made to preserve
greenspace and minimize the impact on the neighboring property.
Work Session: Home Occupations. Members discussed the samples provided from other towns. The main items of discussion were: Foot traffic, car traffic
Expansion of coverage
Prevention of nuisance or stress on services
Ms. Wimberger will research this further. She will check IRA
tax codes. Ms. Caravana thought some of these things should be an
administrative judgment. Mr. Sharkey wants more general definitions.
The words "including but not limited to" could be used
where appropriate. Try saying 25 per cent usage including the
Next Meetings: November 19, and December 17, 7: 00 p.m. (irregular)
Adjournment: 8: 45 p.m.
BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS