Laserfiche WebLink
<br />WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES <br /> October 28, 2013 <br />The Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals met in regular session on October 28, 2013 <br />in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Board <br />present were Mr. Horine, Mrs. Mulligan, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Schmidt. Mr. McDaniel and Mr. <br />Roberts were excused. Call to order at 7:00 p.m. <br />Pledge Allegiance. <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-1676 Ron & Roma Mount request a variance for rear yard setback located at <br />12927 Newburg Court <br />Mr. Schmidt has recused himself from this case due to conflict of interest. <br />Zoning Manager, Ryan Lee, presented the case. <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 fifteen (15) feet into the <br />required rear yard. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an additional encroachment of nine (9) <br />feet. <br />The applicant is requesting this variance given the placement of the dwelling on the lot. The <br />current placement of the structure is 40 feet from the rear lot line and has a rear yard setback of <br />35 feet within the PD-R zoning district. The requested architectural projection encroaches 15 <br />feet into the required rear yard. Proposed elevation drawings have been included within your <br />packets. The design is in line with the existing aesthetics and character of the residence. <br />The applicant has provided signatures from the surrounding property owners who support the <br />proposed variance request. Staff does not take issue with the proposed variance as <br />requested.Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. <br />1 <br /> <br />