| REGULAR MEETING |
JANUARY 3, 2008 |
| ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS |
1 - 1 |
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hawley at 7:30 p.m. A quorum was present.
PRESENT
Chairman Dan Hawley; Boardmembers Michael Borg, Holly Brandt, Timothy Juidici, Karen Worrell; Alternates Mark Jaffray, Kenneth Vance
ALSO PRESENT
Randy Sapelak, Zoning Administrator
ABSENT
Boardmembers Shirley Ford, Marco Palazzolo
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting December 5, 2007
ZB-08-01 Brandt moved, Borg seconded, to approve the minutes from the December 5, 2007, meeting as presented. Motion CARRIED
NEW BUSINESS
VA-08-01, Fisher, 16-11-209-019, 622 Elizabeth, Req. 7’ Front Yard Setback Var. From Art. XI, Sec. 94-301, Schedule of Regulations
Chairman Hawley verified that the notices were sent and that there was no response from the Public.
Mr. Sapelak reviewed his letter dated 12/3/07 (on file at Village office) and explained to the Boardmembers that the homeowners were reconstructing their home after it was destroyed by a gas explosion in December of 2006. He said the homeowners wish construct a covered porch on the front of their home exactly as it was prior to the explosion. Mr. Sapelak said he was unable to find that a building permit ever existed to construct a covered porch on the residence.
Roy and Elaine Fisher, 622 Elizabeth, homeowners, were present to answer any questions from the Boardmembers. Mrs. Fisher said that her father who is now deceased had built the covered porch onto their house as a gift when her and her husband were away several years ago. She said that they were not aware that any permits would be necessary.
Mr. Fisher explained that they are only attempting to construct their home exactly as it was prior to the explosion. He said they have had nothing but trouble with their insurance company and builder. Mr. Sapelak explained that the building company, ECI Builders, asked for a copy of the original building plans, but said the original plans did not include the covered porch.
DISCUSSION
The Boardmembers, Mr. Sapelak and Mr. & Mrs. Fisher discussed the following: The porch will extend the entire length of the front of the house. The house could have been set back further on the property so a variance would not be necessary. All of the homes on the east side of Elizabeth all line up equally in the front. The original home was constructed in 1971. A temporary wooden porch is currently in place.
Mr. Sapelak said he had to be sure the builder submitted additional plans for a deck that was being constructed on the back of the new residence because the builder did not include them with the building plans for the home. He told the Boardmembers the plans the builder submitted for the residence were lacking immensely because they did not include a front porch or rear deck.
The following facts were found to be true:
1. The hardship was created by the builder and not self-created by the homeowners.
2. Granting the variance will not have an adverse affect on the health, safety or welfare of the community.
3. Granting the variance will provide a safe entranceway for the homeowners and protect them from the elements.
4. Without enclosing the porch the homeowner is able to construct a porch that will extend 10’ into the front yard.
5. Many homes in the Village have covered porches and provide character within the Village.
6. Many homes in the Village that have covered porches do not meet the current 25’ front yard setback requirement per Village ordinance.
ZB-08-02 Worrell moved, Borg seconded, to grant a non-dimensional variance of 7’, as per Sec. 94-301, Schedule of Regulations, required 25’ front yard setback. This will allow the applicant to construct a covered porch 22’ X 7’ in depth and shall not be detrimental to the adjacent property owners and based upon previous facts found to be true.
DISCUSSION
Boardmember Brandt asked if the motion should include a condition that the applicant could not enclose the covered porch. Boardmember Worrell verified with Mr. Sapelak that enclosing the porch would require the applicant to apply for a building permit.
Mr. Sapelak said that a permit would be required but that sometimes people construct additions to their homes without the necessary permits.
ZB-08-03 Borg moved, Brandt seconded, to amend ZB-08-02, to include that the covered porch shall not be enclosed.
ROLL CALL VOTE YES – Worrell, Brandt, Borg, Juidici, Jaffray, Vance, Hawley Motion CARRIED
ZB-08-02
ROLL CAL VOTE YES – Hawley, Worrell, Brandt, Borg, Juidici, Jaffray, Vance Motion CARRIED
The applicant has one year to act on the variance.
Joint Meeting Topics
It was suggested to thank Council for their help with finding alternates for ZBA and thank Planning Commission for addressing items that ZBA has forwarded to them for their review.
CALL TO PUBLIC
There was no input from the public.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS
Mr. Sapelak suggested having Planning Commission review Sec. 94-301, of the ordinance because front yard setback variance requests are coming before ZBA more frequently. Mr. Sapelak said a variance request was submitted for the February meeting from the owner of Allstar Corner for a roof sign.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Nancy Scott, CMC
Milford Village Deputy Clerk | 
