JANUARY 9, 2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in the general area of her friend Michael Lundy, who also has special needs. They were not able to buy a home that would meet these special needs and the cost of remodeling and meeting those requirements may exceed the cost of building a new home. The new home is not a cracker box like the home on the lot immediately to the west, which is a garage converted into a home. They have provided parking, but she does not drive and that is why it has to be within walking distance to services, and also has to have city services available like city water and sanitary service. This is a variance from the development standards, the use is residential and would continue to be residential and so the three items are that the improvement would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. They believe that this would not be injurious to those things. It is compatible with the development that has taken place in the area; they are not creating any unusual burden on the uses of the area, therefore they see no impact them. Concerning the value of the adjacent properties concerned, the property to the west would not be impacted for the home would be larger that the one there, and the lots equivalent By looking at the photos, to the northeast and northwest there are two mobile homes, not manufactured homes, while the yards have been maintained in a nice manor you can see that with in site of this home are two mobile homes. They have been occupied for several years; this is not something new, but this give a trend to the neighborhood. They don!t see how a home of this size, on a foundation, could be a determent to property value. Because of the difficulties that arise for the special need of his client even though it might be a particular difficulty with the property, they feel the strict standards make if impractical for them to do any thing with the existing home to meet her needs. They ask that you find favorable for all these three items and you grant the variance from development standards. With that he was open to any question the board might have. They asked what the specific variance would be, and Mr. Holloway said the variance would be a variance from the minimum lot size of R-ID from 10,000 sq. ft. down to 4499.8 for one lot and 4623.1 for the other lot and a variance of the front set back for the proposed home from 42 feet to 16 feet on the north lot and the existing home the variance would be from 40 feet to what ever the existing distance is on the south lot. The rear set back are fine and they could move the home back for the front set back but with the home to the west only being set back 10 feet they felt for appearance it would be best to ask for a variance for their proposed home. Mr. Kenneth Curry, 877 Woodcreek Place, Greenwood, own the property to the west, the place was built in the 1940's and the property is a wet hole. When it rains the city has had to pump water out of the lots several times and they have filled the place in. The rental house at 138 W South St. still has water problems. The house at 138 [4 W. South St. is approximately 20 X 24 fi. has a water problem there all the time. The Town has put in another storm sewer drain at the comer of the alley and there is still a water problem. His concern is if a house is built next door there will be mom water problems than there was. Mr. Crouch asked which way the water drains and Mr. Curry said there was no drain on South Street so all the water runs down the alley from Morz's Plumbing. The water has gotten worse as the years go by. He thinks that when they redid the sewer three