Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10191995 ZBA Minutes• ZONING BOARD OF ADNSTMENT MINUTES FROM 10/19/95 ~RA~ REGULAR SESSION The Zoning Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:35 p.m. with the following members present: Chairman Sterling Minor, Sue Porretto, Michael Neal. Alternate members present were: Amy Chaisson Seling and Ty Hutchins. Present from the City were: Jerry Burns, Deputy Director of Public Works and Cathleen King, Building Secretary. Boazd introduced themselves and procedures explained. Notices were read and participants sworn in. Sue Porretto made a motion to approve the notices as posted, with Michael Neal seconding and the vote for approval was unanimous. The voting members were: Sterling Minor, Sue Porretto, Michael Neal, Amy Seling and Ty Hutchins. The first case on the Docket was 95-12 concerning property at 2631 Nottingham, Lot 2, Block 4, Evanston Addition. This is a request for a variance for a front setback of 19.5' instead of 20' required by the Zoning Ordinance for lots 110' in depth or less. • Peter Rozowski owner of 2631 Nottingham stated he bought the property on October 18, 1995 with the intention of remodeling the existing house. He explained when he was at closing he noticed the survey showed the property was over the 25' deed restriction for Evanston Addition. He stated he then came to the Building Division and spoke with Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official and Mr. Holm told him his house was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, he could not get a pernut. Mr. Holm explained the proper procedure for him would be to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and request a variance. Mr. Rozowski stated he understood his house was 19.5' setback from the front building and was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance which requires his house to have a 20' front setback his request was for the Boazd to grant him a variance so he can make improvements to his house and thus the neighborhood. Peter Rozowski presented pictures to the Board members which show some of the problems of the house. Mr. Rozowski explained the original owner had some architectural drawings drawn up for an extensive remodel but work was never started. The work shown on the drawings was more extensive than he wanted to do. He planned on extending the existing one car gazage to a two car gazage and adding a small corridor to the front door with a circular type roof and a circulaz window upstairs. He stated he had alot of experience in fixing up houses with his father, but he would not be able to • tear down this house and rebuild another one; therefore that was not an option. Mr. Rozowski explained he liked the character of his house and would prefer not to have a lazge new house which West University is mostly made up of. • Mr. Rozowski submitted to the Board correspondence he received from the surveyor. In the letter from the surveyor it states the 20' building line was not referenced in the title report nor was it shown on the plat of survey and the surveyor showed only a 25' building line per the restrictive convenants. Mr. Rozowski explained the surveyor sent his field party back out to further confirm the 19.5' distance from the street Right-of-Way to the front of his house which the surveyor determined to be correct and the surveyor stated according to his party chief most of the houses on the block appeared to be at or about the same distance off the Right-of-Way line. He provided the Board with copies of the papers he signed at the closing. The papers state the house encroaches over the front building line, in reference to the deed restriction. Mr. Rozowski said he wanted to make the Board these papers did not reference anything about the 20' front setback. Mr. Rozowski presented the Board with a copy of the building permit for the house built in 1948. Mr. Rozowski explained he had received a renovation and repair loan for the proposed repairs. He presented a letter detailing his request to the Board. He stated there was a deadline of November 18, 1995 for completion of the repairs or a penalty would be charged monthly. The structural foundation work had already had done; however the house had extensive termite damage which would still need to be corrected. Mr. Rozowski said he also had plans to convert the existing bathroom and den into a master bathroom and closet, replace all the windows and replace the motors on the air conditioning compressor and condenser. These are items all covered under the loan, in • addition there are other repairs such as the renovation of the gazage, which do not involve the loan. Sue Porretto asked if the variance was not granted what would his plans be? Mr. Rozowski stated he could possibly have to cut 6" off of his house. He said this would create a hardship and would make it hazd for him to meet the deadline for his loan. Sue Porretto asked if his hardship were the financial concerns? Mr. Rozowski stated it was partially financial but losing the house would be a terrific hazdship, what he was asking for was to be in compliance so he could remodel. Mr. Rozowski explained he stands to lose a huge investment and could probably a ruin his credit rating if he lost the house. Sue Porretto asked if he would only lose the house if he didn' t bring the house into compliance with the code. Mr. Rozowski said the only thing would be is if he couldn' t bring the house into compliance and do the repairs he promised the mortgage company within six months and make necessary repairs to his house he then could possibly lose the house. Mr. Rozowski stated there is also the possibility on whether the structural engineer could even say if he took 6" off of his house it would still be structural? The Engineer might say no, then taking 6" off of the house would not be an option. Michael Neal stated if the survey provided showed there was an encroachment over the indicated ~ 25' building line at what point of time had Mr. Rozowski become aware of the problem? Mr. Rozowski stated even though it was mazked that there was a 25' deed restriction, his understanding was since there was a grandfather clause to it, it didn't matter and since most of the neighbors houses • were over the same lot line they were not going to bring a civil suit toward him and the City could not enforce it either because it was not a City restriction. He stated that he was not aware of the 20' front setback in Zoning Ordinance until two weeks after he signed his contract and spoke with Dennis Holm, the Chief Building Official. No correspondence was received in favor of the application. Jerry Burns, Deputy Director of Public Works stated he was there representing the City in the absence of Dennis Holm, Chief Building Official. Mr. Burns read the Staff Recommendation from the City which state the structure at 2631 Nottingham was permitted for construction on October 5, 1948. The front setback requirement at the date of permitting was 20' for a lot less than or equal to 110' in depth. At that time, it would be presumed, a forms survey was not required as is today; therefore, the .5' front setback error could very easily have occurred. In order to bring the existing structure at 2631 Nottingham into compliance this variance is needed. The approving of this variance will provide this structure with compliance to the Zoning Ordinance and allow for the issuance of permits or other items as needed in the future without question. The City requires this structure be brought into compliance by the variance process. No correspondence was received in opposition. Sue Porretto made a motion to close the evidentiary portion of the meeting, with Ty Hutchins • seconding and the vote for approval was unanimous. The voting members were: Sterling Minor, Ty Hutchins, Sue Porretto, Michael Neal and Amy Selig. After a brief discussion Sue Porretto made a motion to deny the variance, with Michael Neal seconding. Sue Porretto and Michael Neal were for. Sterling Minor, Amy Selig and Ty Hutchins against. Amy Selig made a motion to amend the rules of procedures by adding to Article IV Sec. 2 relating to Alternate members, with Ty Hutchins seconding and the vote for approval was unanimous. Voting members were: Sterling Minor, Sue Porretto, Michael Neal, Amy Selig and Ty Hutchins. Sue Porretto made a motion to adjourn the meeting, with Amy Chaisson Selig seconding and the vote for approval was unanimous. Amy Chaisson Selig made a motion to re-open the October 19, 1995 meeting, with Michael Neal seconding. The vote was Michael Neal, Sterling Minor, Amy Selig and Ty Hutchins for. Sue Porretto aga.inst. The meeting was re-opened for the motion that this matter be reheazd at the regular scheduled meeting in November both because of the obvious ability to present new evidence and because during the discussion the applicant indicated that he did think he would be able to present new ~ evidence, with Ty Hutchins seconding. The vote was Michael Neal, Sterling Minor, Amy Selig and Ty Hutchins for. Sue Ponetto voted to abstain. • Sue Porretto made a motion to adjourn the meeting, with Ty Hutchins seconding and the vote for approval was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SECRETARY CJ •