AgdaPkt 2003-08-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner Piulle said she was all for day care, but she thinks the neighbors need some kind of assurances that they can appeal under certain circumstances. She wanted to know what the recourse would be for neighbors. She also felt it was no use notifying the neighbors if they have no chance of commenting anywhere, and asked if there was something they ;ould put in the Ordinance. She asked i` the State had any provision in their law for appeal? Mr. Passanisi said that again was Option 3, which states, ... "the applicant or other affected person may appeal the decision ".... He said if she thought that was important, then she would be interested in supporting Option 3. Commissioner Seybert asked if Option 3 applied to homes with six or fewer children, or to the seven to fourteen children? Then he said, with six or fewer, it is just done! Mr. Passanisi concurred. Mr. Brower followed up on something that was said in response to Commissioner Piulle's question regarding appeal. He said it is discussed in Section 8 -3, which involves whether or not to grant the permit in the first place. That can be appealed. It is not if there is a problem with it after the facility is in place. Commissioner Radcliffe had a question on Trellises and Arbors. She said on page 2 on the memorandum, circled page 17 & 27 of the packet, on the three foot encroachment into the front yard setback, it is written that "...the house at the setback of the front yard." She felt that was not always the case. She was not sure the wording was correct. Mr. Williams said that the intent of that language was if the house was beyond the setback, and a portion of the trellis would meet setbacks, it could still extend three feet into the front yard. Commissioner Radcliffe said, so you could have the difference between your setback plus the three feet. Mr. Williams concurred. Commissioner Radcliffe referred to circle 49 for Porte cochere — it says at least six feet from the main building. She said her understanding of a Porte cocheres is that it is attached to the building that it goes over the driveway, so she was a little confused. Mr. Williams said they have not defined Porte cocheres separately. He said if they fall under the definitions of Trellises & Arbors, then they could be allowed to be in the setback, according to these regulations. Porte cocheres are usually attached to the house, so in this case they would be considered trellises. As long as they had the openness to them and met the setback requirements, they can be allowed. Commissioner Radcliffe said she thought the purpose of a Porte cochere was having a solid roof, which in her mind is different than a trellis. Mr. Williams said this is an evolution. This particular attachment is the summary outline of where all the discussions started. He said the recommendation is just to limit the open structures to intruding into the setbacks, it does not allow for a covered structure.to do that. Additional provisions would have to be added for that. Page 20 of 26