Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES <br /> July 8, 2013 <br /> <br />The Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals met in regular session on July 8, 2013 in <br />the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Board present <br />were Mr. Horine, Mrs. Mulligan, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Schmidt. Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Roberts <br />were excused. Call to order at 7:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Pledge Allegiance. <br /> <br />Mr. Schwartz, Chairman, explained the hearing format and voting procedure. <br />The Oath was administered by Mr. Schwartz to all persons planning to testify. <br />Case # A-1671 Marty Coates variance request for setback of rear yard encroachment <br />located at 658 Heartland Trace. <br />Zoning Manager, Ryan Lee, presented the case. <br /> <br />The applicant is requesting a variance for a reduced setback requirement for a covered porch into <br />the required rear yard of the above-referenced property. The Township Zoning Resolution <br />allows for architectural features to encroach into required yard setbacks than would otherwise be <br />obligated for principle structures on the lot. Specifically, a six (6) foot architectural projection is <br />permitted to extend into a required rear yard setback provided that it is open on three (3) sides. <br />In this case, the applicant has proposed a covered porch that extends twelve (12) feet into the <br />required rear yard. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an additional encroachment of six (6) <br />feet. <br />The applicant is requesting this variance given the existing placement of the deck structure on <br />the rear of the house; desiring to cover the length of the porch area while creating a larger shaded <br />area under roof. The rear of the property directly abuts Rosewood Park and as such does not <br />have residential lots or dwellings in close proximity. It is staff’s opinion that the applicant’s <br />request is not substantial given that it there is no abutting residence to the rear of the property <br />which would be negatively impacted by the additional 6 foot encroachment of the architectural <br />projection. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. <br />Mr. Horine asked if the applicant gave any indication as to what the roof line was going to look <br />like. Mr. Lee responded the applicant did indicate that they wanted to tie it into the structure <br />utilizing the similar building style and materials as to what exists. They did not give staff any <br />elevations as part of the request. <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />