12-10-1992 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA

Browse Search

Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of December 10, 1992 Page 3 Chairman Bemay asked the staff to refund to the church any money spent for this Special Exception Request. Charles Christensen made a motion to table the item. All members were in favor of tabling the request. IV. CONSIDER APPEAL OF THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DECISION A92-001 WHICH IS REQUESTED BY MR. ROBERT THROWER OF 3425 VALLEY BROOK MR. THROWER IS SEEKING TO WIDEN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY TO 33 FEET. HE IS APPEAliNG THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION THAT DRIVEWAY WIDTH MAY NOT EXCEED 25 FEET. Mr. Griffith informed the Board that the appeal was being made by Bob Thrower of 3425 Valley Brook. Mr. Thrower is adding on to his residence. He enclosed one bay of his triple car garage, added on to the north end of the garage and enlarged his driveway. Mr. Thrower's contractor was notified that the drive was not in conformance, however, there was a lack of communication between Mr. Thrower and his contractor regarding the City Inspector's determination that the driveway enlargement exceeded the maximum allowable width (25 feet) for a residential driveway. In order to bring the drive (which is now 33 feet) back into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, it would be necessary for Mr. Thrower to remove an 8 foot section of the driveway that no longer fronts a garage door. Mr. Griffith stated that staff feels that the enforcement officer has correctly interpreted the Zoning Ordinance requirements pertaining to this matter, therefore, staff feels that this appeal should be denied. Mr. Grant wanted to clarify that the section of the driveway to be removed would be the 8 foot section from the sidewalk to the street which is the old part of the driveway. The new part of the driveway is located on the right side. Mr. Griffith verified the fact that a permit had been issued for the construction of the new part of the driveway. Mr. Grant asked why the inspector, during routine inspection, allowed the construction to continue. Mr. Griffith stated that the contractor was informed that the drive, as was being constructed, was not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.