Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2020 06 17

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 20, 2020 Page 7 of 9 Koepke asks if there is anything that could be done to mitigate and comfort the neighbor regarding the loss of light. Barsch says that he has a few ideas such as lowering the old gable wall and looking at the footprint of the garage. They are willing to re-evaluate this subject to accommodate for the neighbors' concerns. Discussion by Board: Stuart says that it seems clear that the board will want to do a continuance on this application. If there is no continuance for this, he says his vote would be a no because it is important to him that the neighbors are behind the proposed design and it seems they are not in favor of this design. He mentions that the character of the neighborhood is best understood by the neighbors since they live in the area and because the neighbors have expressed reservations regarding this topic, this is concerning for him. He wants the applicant to work with the neighbors and address the concerns that have been mentioned. Regarding criteria five and six, he does not think the applicant is meeting those either criteria with the proposed design. He does think the structure looks too big for the neighborhood, but mentions that that concern is not related to any of the criteria. Mihaly asks what the correct procedure is to see where the other board members are at with their vote. Ritchie says they can do a straw poll to see where the board members are leaning towards for their vote. Mihaly says he is leaning towards voting no. Regarding criteria three and five, he does not see either of these being met. He agrees with Stuart in that the neighbor's feedback matters in his vote such as the addressed burdens being put on them, and he is concerned about the design being in alignment with the character of the neighborhood. He mentions that he would be more inclined to allow the variance if the applicants were just using the existing foot print and structure. He thinks most of the square footage is new or added on to the structure for the second floor. He also mentions that he believes it may be safer to allow direct access from Pine Street. Cooper says that she thinks criteria two and five are not met by the applicant. She points out that normally residential buildings have a backyard, but that there is not really a backyard for this property. This would be a tight space on the property and it seems to encroach on the back portion, which is unusual. She mentions that being able to park the cars on Pine Street seem to solve some of these issues and be favorable for the neighbors. She says she would vote no if she had to vote during this meeting but would like to do a continuance. Leedy asks the applicant what they think of going forward with a continuance on the application.