Planning Commission Minutes - September 7, 2022  PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF:  Chairwoman Nancy Moore. and Member(s): Diane Bernardo, Joe  Becker, David Volpe, and Ed Andrulonis  None  Code Enforcement/Zoning Officer, Zac Lawhead; City Solicitor, Tony  Cherry; City Secretary, Bobbie Shaffer  The meeting was called to order at 4:15 p.m. by Planning Commission Chairwoman, Nancy  Moore.  Approval of Minutes : June 6,2022  The motion was made by Becker and seconded by Volpe that the Planning Commission  accept the minutes of July 6, 2022 as presented.  VOTE AYES: Moore ABSTAIN: None NAYS: MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Visitor's Comments: None Old Business: None New Business: Avenue  Commission Members: Andrulonis, Becker, Bernardo, Volpe, and Chairwoman  None  Dennis Raybuck - Modification Request - FrontYard SetbackReduction-208E.Sherman Lional "Bucky" Alexander, Surveyor, and Bob Ilo, Architect, presented the site plan and Mr. Alexander presented the Narrative requesting a modification of the SALDO requirements for a front yard setback. He stated that originally the house was builti ina subdivision sold by the City in 1955. The house was built in compliance with the Land Development Ordinance; which required a 60' setback from the center of the road to the Currently the: setbacks are 35.5'1 from the sidewalk to the garage and 29.5' from the sidewalk to the building. That being said, the house is already 5.4' out of compliance with current  explained how the space will be used.  building and 35' from the property line.  standards.    Planning Commission Minutes - September 7, 2022 (Cont'd.)  They are asking for an addition 8' over the 5.4' for a total request of 13.3' variancefor  modificationrequest. to the outside.  Currently there is no outside access to the basement and the project needs an access point City Solicitor Cherry stated that a modification request needs to show al hardship in order to be approved. She asked why they are not looking at expanding on to the additional lot Mr. Illo stated that the International Residential Code requires an egress for a basement. There are only two possible walls in which to make. an egress the East and Front. Ifthey went out the rear, they would have to demolish the rear of the house. The front provides a corridor with the most public way out of the house. The front west would make the entrance closer to the driveway and the street. The front west would comply to the letter City Solicitor Cherry stated that you are not required to have an emergency escape from a Mr. llo stated that Mr. & Mrs. Raybuck would like to build bedrooms in the basement. Cherry asked, what about the adjoining lot makes it not an option to build. Illo stated that the plumbing comes out the back and the front west would provide a direct exit.  instead.  and spirit of the IRC code.  basement.  Cherry asked, is it more expensive to expand above ground? lot, except they would be losing their back yard.  llo stated that there is no physical reason preventing them from expanding onto the other Mr. Alexander said hel believes if they are going to utilize the basement; therefore, they must comply with the IRC and have an outside entrance. He asked what Solicitor Cherry's Cherry stated she is concerned that the adjoining lot allows for expansion without Council Alexander stated that Mr. Raybuck would like his kids to come and stay and the best use of  concerns were.  having to grant ar modification. space would be thel basement.    Planning Commission Minutes = September 7, 2022 (Cont'd.)  Member Andrulonis asked how this property is Deeded. Mr. Raybuck stated iti is Deeded to their three children with Mr. & Mrs. Raybuck given life occupancy, but they do have The Planning Commission exited for a20-minute Executive Session at 4:391 p.m.  standing.  Reconvened at 5:23 p.m.  Solicitor Cherry apologized for the wait, she stated that the Commission was struggling with  the language of the PA: statue which reads as follows:  53P.5. $10512.1. Modifications  (a) Theg governing body or the planning agency, if authorized to approve applications within the subdivision and land development ordinance, may, grant a modification of the requirements of one or more provisions if the literal enforcement will exact undue hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question, provided that such modification will not be contrary to the public interest and that the purpose  and intent of the ordinance is observed.  Member Becker addressed the Raybuck's and stated that as you can build behind your existing house, he feels if they grant the request it could come back on them when the next Member Andrulonis stated that it is difficult to approve. given the additional lot. Ther motion was made by Becker and seconded by Andrulonis that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that they deny the request from Mr. & Mrs. Raybuck fora  person asks forai modification.  modification at 208 E. Sherman Avenue.  VOTE AYES: Moore ABSTAIN: None NAYS: MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Adjournment VOTE AYES: Moore ABSTAIN: None NAYS: MOTION PASSED: 5-0  Commission Members: Andrulonis, Becker, Bernardo, Volpe, and Chairwoman  None  There being no further business to transaction, the motion was made by' Volpe and  seconded by Becker that the Planning Commission adjourn.  Commission Members: Andrulonis, Becker, Bernardo, Volpe, and Chairwoman  None