Laserfiche WebLink
MIHOTBS OF THB PUUmiWS COMMISSIOll TIHG HELD AUGUST 15, 198i <br />Z0NIV6 FILE #1311 CONTIHUED <br />discovered there was a greater need for the S-^season porch and <br />bathroom, rather than enhancing the master bedroom. <br />Bellows stated that the Planning Commission members have a <br />real problem dealing with the concept of a 3-season porch. They <br />look at them as being an addition to the house. Mrs. Purdy <br />stated that they agreed with that. Cohen added that the bathroom <br />only confirms that. Bellows stated that it was more difficult to <br />approve that than a screened porch. Mrs. Purdy asked why. <br />Bellows replied that the 3-season porch was adding to the floor <br />structure and mass of the house, and they are asking to do the <br />addition in an area where they should not be building at'a 11. <br />She added that if the applicants were requesting approval of a <br />screened porch, the Planning Commission would have an easier time <br />with the deliberation; a 3-season porch is in fact an addition to <br />the house. <br />Kelley inquired as to the original size of the house when it <br />was purchased by the Purdys. Mrs. Purdy stated that the only <br />addition to the house in 15 years was the addition to the front. <br />Cohen stated that he empathized with applicants' situation, but <br />he felt that there was no demonstrated hardship and was afraid of <br />setting a precedent. Mr. Purdy stated that in their proposed 5 <br />year plan they intended to add two larger, very permanent <br />structures to the house than what they were now seeking. What <br />they are requesting should carry them through the next 6 years <br />until their children are grown. Mrs. Purdy added that when they <br />were before the Planning Commission in 1985, they were given the <br />reverse precedent-setting argument and were told it did not <br />matter what had previously been done, each case was looked upon <br />individually. Gaffron interpreted Cohen's comments to mean that <br />if the Purdys were allowed to build further lakeward from the <br />existing house, that would be unusual for Eagerness Point Road. <br />All other additions done in that area over the last 10 to 15 <br />years have been done behind the line of the existing house. <br />Bellows stated that that was the problem, especially since there <br />were other alternatives. Mr. Purdy stated that if hardcover near <br />the lake was a concern they had a storage structure and a kennel <br />now classified as hardcover, that they would be willing to <br />remove. <br />There were no further public comments and the public hearing <br />was closed. <br />It was moved by Brown, seconded by Kelley, to recommend <br />denial of the variances for #1311, based upon setting a precedent <br />for encroaching into the lakeshore setback area. Kelley added <br />that he felt there were other alternatives. Bellows stated that <br />she could not find a hardship in this matter. Applicant added <br />that the hardship is that the house is 80 years old and they have <br />exceeded its capacity. There is no other plan that would allow <br />them as much useful space as the plan they now proposed. Gaffron