Text · page 3 of 5
• Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties – No • Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance – Yes • Whether the request is substantial – At 50%, no • Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district – No • Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created – Yes, but the balancing test favors granting the 5ft variance As the vote on the motion was six (6) ayes and one (1) nay (Mr. Chapman), the motion carried. GRANTED (with condition of 5ft) Application #6168 Eileen Mahoney – Requesting one (1) area variance for a proposed deck at 5610 Sterling Rd (Zoned R-1) Eileen Mahoney, homeowner, spoke on this variance. Kim Petrie, 5548 Sterling Rd, spoke as well. Petrie stated that Mahoney is asking for a 10 by 10 deck porch in front of her front door. The variance is needed because they need 35 ft. from the property line so they would be encroaching about 10 ft. to place the deck. Commissioner Chapman asked what was across the street. Petrie stated that it was another house. Chairman Dimpfl stated that he believes there are other homes on the street that have structures closer than 35 ft. Petrie stated yes, there is one a few houses down. Commissioner Falkiewicz asked if it was going to be covered and Petrie stated no. The Board had no further questions. Findings: Mrs. Hahn made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kuebler, to approve Application # 6168. Mrs. Hahn reviewed the area variance criteria as follows: • Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties – No it will not • Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance – It is already small so she does not think they could go much smaller