03/05/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? ` somewhat aware that a permit was needed. He did not know that the shed was non-conforming. Mr. Gomersall uoted that if he had taken out a permit, he would have been told it was non-conforming. Mrs. Thaxton, the neighbor to the rear, explained that when he installed the shed, she knew that it was wroug, but she did not complain, because she laiew her dog had aggravated him. She finally complained after he made a call on her dog. The neighbor across the street stated that he could hear her dog from }us property. The neighbors were advised that the issue was the shed, not the dog. Mrs. Thaxton explained that when Mr. Barrett goes to lus shed, her dog barks, and W. Barrett yells at lwn to shut up. Her dog also barks when the squirrels get on top of his shed. Mr. Gomersall again stated, that they are talking about the shed, not the dog. Mrs. Thompson had no complaint about the shed. Mrs. Diver, a friend of Mr. Barrett who ]ives on 1Vlitchell, stated that a neighlior of hers had been told by the Building Department that he did not need a permit for a shed, and she told 1VIr. Barrett that, so she may be just as guilty. Mr. Prior, who lives across the street, had no problem with the shed wluch had been there for over two and a half years. Mr. Laurent, who also lives across the street, has no problem with the shed which is directly across from his house. Councilmau I,ind stated that the shed had been there for a long period of time, aud it would seem that if someone was going to complain, they should have complained long before now. He believed that the variance should be granted because no one had complained when it was installed. Since the shed was on 2 by 4's, 1VIr_ Gomersall suggested that it could be moved in five feet, to eliuuuate the problem. Mr. Koberna noted that there would still be a two square foot variance for the area. W. Barrett asked if any of the members had looked at the shed and was told that all the members had seen it. Mr. Gomersall did not believe that moving it in would make it look any different, but it would be conforming to the major discrepancy. Mrs. Barrett stated that this will not stop the dog from barking. Mrs. Thaxton stated that the shed is 5 feet from her property aud the dog barks to protect its property; she asked if they wanted her to kill the dog. She was again advised that the issue is the shed, not the dog. On neighbor stated that most people put the shed in the corner. Mr. Barrett stated that he was sure that many people had been given a variance to have it less than 10 feet from the line, and based on the size of his yard, he was asking for the variance. Mr. Gomersall advised that another neighbor, Mrs. Morron, had called in advising that they had no objectiou, but could not come to the meeting. Mr. Koberna stated that because of the angle of the shed, and because it had been there for three and a half years, he believed that it would be a hardslup for the ownier to move the shed at tlus time. Mr. Miller asked if there were any next door neighbors present, he had heard from neighbors across the street and one to the rear, but the next door neighbors would be most effected. There were no next door neighbors present. Mrs. Barrett stated on of the uext door ueighbors had told her that they had no objection. Mr. Purper stated that normally he would have no complaint about this variance, and if there was a problem with the dog, they should call the Police and let thein handle it. Mr. Barrett stated that this is what he did and what started the problems. W. Purper moved to grant the request of Jerome Banett, 24125 Lebern Drive, to grant the followiug variances for existiug shed: a two square foot variance for area of shed in excess of 2% of the rear yard area and a 5 foot rear setback variance. Violatiou of Ord. 90-125, Section(s)1135.02 (D1) and (D4). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna, and unanimously approved. Variances granted. 3. Johu Friedrich, 27462 Edgoark Blvd. Request for variance (1123.12). Request a 39 square foot variauce for area of shed wluch will exceed the maximum 2% of the rear yard area that is permitted. Violatiou of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 (d-1). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Mi-. and Mrs. Friedrich, and neighbors, Mr. Montemaguo and Mr. Shoemaker. Mr. Gomersall noted that tlus was also put up without a permit. Mi-. Friedrich explained that he purchased the material from 2