11/05/2018 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

have moved the structures if permits were pulled, but there was no point in moving the structures. Mr. Mackey moved, seconded by Mr. Papotto, to approve the following variances for 18- 12621; Marty & Barb Stasiuk; 6085 Fitch Road: 1. A 2 ft. and 5 ft. variance for side yard setback for two animal shelters; code requires 10 ft. side yard setback, applicant shovvs 8 ft. and 5 ft., respectively, Section 1135.02(E)(1). 2. A variance for two animal shelters located within tlne required 200 ft. of a dwelling; code requires a minimum separation of 200 ft. from any dwelling on an adjacent lot, applicant shows less than 200 ft., Section 1135.02(E)(1). Motion passed 4-0. 18-12632; James & Shannon Lazarus; 5806 Gaa-eau I)rive Representatives: Shannon Lazarus Proposal consists of an appeal of a Notice of Violation for a hazardous, damaged and deteriorated driveway and apron per Section 1363.302.8 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in Section 1363.111.1. Property is zoned B-One Family Residence. The applicant was cited for their driveway and is appealing the notice. Mr. Grusenmeyer said he concurs with the inspector's opinion. Ms. Lazarus measured most of the cracks and they are less than one inch wide. She is currently having a roof put on and some of the damage was done by the contractor. Her family has a single income so the fence, siding and driveway repairs need to be done in phases. She believed the pieces of concrete from the road are contributing to the damage in her driveway. Mr. Gareau pointed out that Section 1363.111.2, Standard for Review states that "An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that there is no basis in fact for the Building Commissioner's Notice or that the decision is arbitrary or capricious." Mr. Mackey asked about the damage that was caused by the roof contractor. Ms. Lazarus said the heavy machines made the driveway worse. Mr. Mackey asked if she hired the roof contractor because of a violation, she did not. She had been saving for a new roof and gutters and was able to have it installed. The roof was installed in September, prior to the property maintenance inspection in October. Mr. Mackey asked about the timeline for the area to be fixed by the roof contractor, Ms. Lazarus hoped it would be soon. Ms. Lazarus was having trouble getting a contractor to do the driveway before her deadline due to concerns about the weather. Mr. Grusenmeyer was not sure if the driveway could be repaired without replacing the entire block without seeing it in person. He was unsure if the applicant requested an extension from the property maintenance inspector. The building department is able to grant extensions to a date certain if a contract is presented. Mr. Rahm confirmed with the applicant that she had not reached out to the inspector, she said she did not know it was an option. He asked what her timeline was to do the work. Ms. Lazarus said she wanted to do her fence, siding and then the driveway. She would rearrange the order of the repairs but that is her preferred order. Mr. Grusenmeyer suggested the applicant table the proposal and discuss repair options with the inspector. Mr. Papotto said doing the heavy work prior to replacing the driveway made sense. Mr. Gareau asked if the owner recently purchased the home. Ms. Lazarus bought the home in 2007. Mr. Mackey believed tabling the issue until the next meeting seems reasonable. Mr. Papotto thanked Mr. Grusenmeyer for the reasonable