Text · page 5 of 6
rebuilding is more efficient. Chairman Dimpfl asked if any of her neighbors had problems with this, and Russo stated no, they are supportive of the rebuild. Commissioner Adrian asked Code Enforcement Officer Skrzypek if any plans have been submitted for this. Skrzypek said no, not yet, but when they are submitted they will need to meet all requirements for fire separation. Commissioner Adrian was concerned they would need to alter the variance after the plans are submitted. Skrzypek stated that the front yard variance is where they are located now with the porch. After speaking with Russo they are not planning on going any closer to the road. He said the side yard is kind of where they are already. There is 28 feet he believes in the back yard width and 27 feet in the front. In an R1 zone they require 15ft on one side and 10 feet in the other—it is a tight lot. Commissioner Falkiewicz stated that many of those lots in the neighborhood are non-conforming. Commissioner Adrian asked Russo if she had an architect. Russo said yes, he walked the lot with the builder today. Commissioner Adrian asked Russo if they think any additional variances would be needed after the site plan is created. He said it is hard to make a decision without seeing a site plan. Russo stated again that they plan to build in the same spot as the existing home, just with the old addition spanning the whole width on the new home, and maybe a few additional feet off the back. They need this for a mudroom and a bigger bathroom. Chairman Dimpfl stated they would be going off the same footprint. The Board had no further questions. Findings: Mrs. Hahn made a motion, seconded by Ms. Falkiewicz, to approve Application # 6144. On the question: 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 • Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance – She does not believe so with the tight lot • Whether the request is substantial – No • Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district – She does not believe so • Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created – Possibly, but the balance test favors the applicant All members voted in favor of the motion. GRANTED