05/05/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is, but noted that W. Churchin has already stated that the pins were going to be identified. Mr. and Mrs. Dye agreed with the Merutkas that the fence would be unsightly. Mr. Koberna noted that Mr. Churclun can legally put up a shed that conforms to the size ordinance. It was clarified that he could have a 60.2 square foot shed. It was determined that all the neighbors were opposed to the shed and believed that if he had to have a shed, it should conform to the size allowed. Since Mr. Churchin this shed is to store lawn mowers, Mr. Wollinaun questioned what kind of a lawn mower needed an 11 foot high shed. Mr. Churchin responded that he needed the 11 foot height in order to get the proper pitch for the gazebo shape of the shed. He clarified that tlus is not a gazebo, but it is a gazebo shaped shed. Mr. Gomersall agreed that the shed was too big. Mr. Churchin stated that the shed was oversized because the covered patio took up a large portion of the yard. He explained that he would build the same type shed, only smaller if he does not get the variauce, and offered to split the difference between what is allowed and what he wants. Mr. Gomersall stated that the board would also have to vote on the enclosed patio even though it was installed 15 years ago, because a variance is still needed and no variance had ever been granted. It was clarified that this variance was not requested on the agenda because the Building Department had not completed its research when the agenda was printed. R. Gomersall moved to grant the request of Emil R. Churchin, 6111 Stafford Drive, for a 33 square foot variance for area exceeding 2% of the rear yard which is maximum allowed for a shed, seconded by J. Maloney. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Maloney, and Koberna, no. Mr. Purper, yes. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. Regarding the enclosed patio, R. Gomersall moved to grant to Emil Churchin, 6111 Stafford Drive, a seven foot variance for a covered patio, seconded by J. Maloney, and unauimously approved. Variance granted. 2. Joseph and Edith D'Agostino, 3229 Twin Circle Drive. Request for variance (1123.12. Request 7 foot rear yard variance to replace existing shed. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(a)(4). Chainnan Gomersall called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. and Mrs. D'Agostino, and neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Freiberger and Mr. Wersh all of whom live behind the D' Agostinos. It was explained that Mr. D'Agostino wanted to put the shed 3 feet from the back line. He showed the neighbors a copy of the plan. The neighbors stated that he was not just replacing a shed, he was changing the location. The shed will be 3 feet from the line and Mr. Wersh questioned why this shed should only 3 foot from the line, when his shed had to be 8 feet from the line. Mr. D'Agostino responded that if he moved it to 8 feet, it would be in the middle of his garden. The neighbors believed that the shed could be placed any place along the back line, there is about 160 feet of yard where the shed could be. Mr. Purper suggested that they put it 5 feet from the line. Mr. D'Agostino stated that it had to be 3 feet, or he could not use it at all because part of his lot frequently flooded. The neighbors disagreed stating that he had filled in his yaxd so that it was higher than theirs and flooding the yards on Maple Ridge. They were advised to take this complaint to the Engineering Department. Mr. Koberna suggested that there could be some kind of compromise between the neighbors and the applicants. Mrs. D'Agostino stated that the neighbors had no right to complain, she clid not believe that this shed would bother anybody. Mr. Gomersall advised that the neighbors did have the right to be at the meeting. Mr. Purper again mentioned a compromise. Mr. D'Agostino stated that there was only 12 feet between the end of his cement walk and the fence, and since the shed was 8 feet there 2