Laserfiche WebLink
MIHUTBS OP TBB PIAmiTC COMMISSIOH TING HELD D]UR 21, 1987 <br />#1233 MICHRBL HALLBT BOMBS, INC. <br />Michael Halley of Michael Halley Homes, Inc. was present <br />for this matter and stated they have entered into a <br />agreement with the Mernik's to purchase 2715 Pence Lane. <br />They are interested in removing the existing structure <br />and building a new home on the property. He noted the <br />two adjacent neighbors* concern with preserving the many <br />trees on the lot. He explained that in order to build <br />the proposed walk-out house and not disturb the 0-75* <br />area, they would have to raise the house 9* by bringing <br />in fill, which would be very difficult and the neighbors <br />would not favor. He noted that the neighbors could not <br />attend the meeting but will be submitting letters in <br />support of their proposal. <br />Bellows noted a third alternative of building a house <br />with a basement and no walkout. <br />Mr. Halley stated from a marketing standpoint, they <br />would not build a house without a walkout. <br />Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Bellows' <br />third option. <br />Mabusth noted for Planning Commission members and Mr. <br />Halley that bringing fill would most likely require a <br />conditional use permit. <br />Mr. & Mrs. Mernik were present for this matter. Mrs. <br />Mernik noted that the property as it exists has a <br />drainage problem. <br />Bellows explained that the creation of a walkout does <br />not solve drainage problems. The drainage and allowing a <br />walkout are two totally separate issues. She felt that <br />the proposed extent of grading within the 0-75* should <br />not be allowed. <br />Mr. Halley indicated to the Planning Commission that if <br />a walkout design was denied, the sale of the property to <br />him would not occur. <br />There were no other comments from the public and the <br />public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to <br />recommend denial of the application as proposed based on <br />insufficient hardship. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />It was noted that repair of the retaining walls by the <br />owners would require a separate application by the owner <br />as current applicant is Michael Halley Homes, Inc. <br />8