HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCDATE=JULY 18, 2005 (14) Drop Review Subrmmmimcr—.July 16, 2005
Page s of I I
• • Sillier: lupluirad the zoning slandnrdfunnaversal height vllowwce for 2so structure on any
given property. Computed by using the marlmunl point of the sill Plate & turf. Historic district
allows for carriage houses to he built as a 2 story structure.
• Durriodorger: questioned why the camage house was not placed at the back of the yad.
• Harris: Dr'iginal request was to place at furthest point of back yard- Was requested mow the
setback to 15 feel instead of 10 feet, to not pass the existing(house) structure,
• Shnud: Was wnunon for call age house to exist for both large and smaller homes. No records
officer fields esisling o town the histone district.
Harnett: Ask for Iuww9edgo of any prior history of the pmperty.
• Harris: When first house was bill[ on property, owner has several adjoining parcels. The
m'ipnel carriage house was on the next lot (west on tdlasnn). Pa¢alswem sold e9endrthcr
homes were buil[ on each parcel
• Ms. Vargv: The construction of Ile carriugc house looks to be out ofpmportion vismlly, but she
and her husband wore aware of the frescoed carriage house cnnilructuwn
• Mr. Hmrnsbeak: Sonwpeopkcan build anything, anymhcm, while others can't. Heeaplalned
that he was given restrictions regarding the location ofpropnsd shed construction.
• Ms. Hmnsbeak: She Wtew of the carriage house prior to cwstmdiun; hnwevv she hehcvcd the
proposal to he 9-10 feet away from her property line.
• Tbonas: Had wanted to build a gnryti also had lo elect setback rmnictions- Staled Ole believuJ
within the historic annual, usually num space would be needed refuse a carnage house. Asked!
how [his phypet was to affect pmperty values in the area^
Stroud: Construction and factory improvements typlcallyincrcase woronnding pmpertyvalues.
• • Rcrosonfla : DRS is commission it thenueoliglnor and
mm; the
• RosmotYhy: Was on commission et the limenfappmvvl antl still Cels the project meet the
guideline,
• Walkup: Stun he too was on lar commission at the time of approval of the project.
• Hurnes: Questioned the appropriateness chisels the size & location. Pods there is tension
betwrun the neighbors c[rtrvnlly. Owns a worried house, which sits un the buck of this lot.
• Rmmerrhy: Knows a COA was
house was ie did u t iwifi some changes lequesmd by rho DRS.
• )Iaunple a Wiwnoti COAwdbe approved, liedid
to neighboring
llmslmefthe smuntrc. Crud
eaenple of whyxngpeshould say,
pasted client to a Janne construction
gprupenico Expressed eancem of
nuhipH mucks bring erhd se situ: scree ower is o haute i on di eioot esChlo
• Harris: Pupsize owner hnsxevrml ecry large «uckspmAedon Hu footnote.foChloride only one
Huck (pickup size) site. The truck ie trend untl used fur Mr. tl:+rris for his company (l.H.
Hama Construction).Qsta
• Ma. 5lillar-. ked if there location of ordinance
construction
mita
• approval.
A.skediltle[Ndth an'Connotitionto cwTl toepacommiriien from rescinding aprirr
uppmwl. Rwmmmauted the rem wmmotiunmroscand the originalmminn.
• Durrenherger: 2"amotion to rescinds the original approval.
• Saber: Not aware ofwy rcetricnons,however, legal council would need lobe ruin Sed.
• Stroud: Would stat recommend such action by the wrinnission, the approval was based tar the
style/daignsronhe plaecntionOt the structure. Couldceusenmm uppmvalstobehrouUlt back
at anytime. felt it was a bad idea to even consider such an action.
. • NuWen: Askd to read the station regarding the COA approval from the pebmury 14, 20(15,
DRS meeting minutes, Approval given by Chairman Pru-tem Driaka. Minutes were read.