Laserfiche WebLink
1.8 and 1.9 to one. The fifth request was in the Springmill <br /> <br />Subdivision portion of the Planned Unit Development requesting a <br /> <br />30 foot front yard setback instead of the 40 foot required by the <br /> <br />ordinance. The last request was from the side yard setbacks <br /> <br />individual and combined from 10 feet individual to 6.1 feet <br /> <br />individual and ~2.2 feet combined in the Springmill Subdivision. <br /> <br />The Board proceeded to questions from the floor. Kevin O. Farrow <br /> <br />of 1003 Rooker Road wanted to know about traffic and, in <br /> <br />particular, how it might impact his accessibility to his drive on <br /> <br />the corner of Rooker Road and State Road 144. George Smith <br /> <br />advised that some of the traffic might be diverted through the <br /> <br />subdivision and that, in particular, a significant amount of <br /> <br />traffic would not be added by this addition. Mr. Farrow also <br /> <br />questioned where water and sewers would be located. This was <br /> <br />pointed out by George Smith. There being no further questions <br /> <br />from the floor, the Board proceeded to its findings of fact on <br /> <br />each of the six respective variances. Reviewing each of them <br /> <br />individually they found <br /> <br />1. That the approval would not be injurious to the public <br />health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community <br />since the lot line should be satisfactory to the homes in the <br />area with sewer and water being provided, that the reduced <br />square footage on the efficiencies should not be <br />inappropriate due to this being in a senior housing project, <br />that the lot square footage reduction should not be harmful <br />since sewer and water were being provided, that the <br />difference in the lot width ratio was not significant, that <br />the front yard abutting residential for purposes of the front <br />setback was consistent in the whole subdivision and, lastly, <br />that the minimum yard setback was consistent throughout the <br />district. <br />2. That the use and value of the area adjacent to the <br />property included in the variance would not be affected in a <br />substantially adverse manner since this property was being <br />developed as a planned unit development and Rooker Road <br />buffered the property on one side along with Springhill on <br />the other. <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br /> <br />