Laserfiche WebLink
allow the applicant to use the building to store his large boat. The location was moved due to the <br />presence of a large oak tree in the middle of the back yard that the applicant would like to keep. <br />Mr. Abahazi was against the proposal. He believed the request is far beyond what is reasonable <br />in a single-family residential area. He did not think people would want to buy a home with such <br />a large structure next door. <br />Ms. Capek was opposed to an increase in square footage of the building. She did not want the <br />building to be built closer to Forest Ridge Drive. She was opposed to spot lights being installed <br />on the top of the large structure. <br />Mr. Lewis said the applicant owns two lots and believed they need more equipment to care for <br />the la1 ger lot. <br />Ms. Mustafa was concerned that the structure would be built too close to her property. Mr. Smik <br />said there would be approximately 350 feet between the back of the garage and the rear property <br />line with a densely wooded area in between. <br />Mr. Aspery added that the applicant has already been grantecl a variance permitting a 1,280 <br />square feet detached garage and 836 square foot attached garage for a total combined garage <br />space of 2,116 square feet. This previous total exceeds the allowable garage area for the property <br />by 1,366 square feet and offers the applicant a viable alternative to accomplish equipment <br />storage well above what code would allow for combined garage area. The garage currently <br />proposed exceeds the minimum required floor area for a one-story dwelling in B One Family <br />Residence district by 236 square feet. Given this information, the Planning Department does not <br />support this variance request. <br />Mr. Allain confirmed with the applicant that "storage barn" in his letter refers to a garage and <br />will have concrete poured to access it. Mr. Raig claxified that the structure would be about 45 <br />feet from the back of the home, moving away from the rear property line than initially approved <br />in 2012. Mr. Gareau pointed out that the attached garage has been built already. <br />Ms. Capek stated that her abutting property line is to the south of the applicant's home. She can <br />see the attached garage from her property and believes that she would be able to see the entire <br />proposed structure. Mr. Aspery pointed out that a spotlight was not in the proposed drawing. Mr. <br />Smik did not see a reason to install spotlights on the back or sides of his garage. <br />Mr. Papotto believed that the owner did the right thing to seek a variance for his anticipated <br />storage needs for the initial structure but he did not see the hardship for the additional square <br />footage. Mr. Gareau said the variance that was approved in 2012 would still apply if this request <br />was denied. The applicant would be able to move the garage as long as no additional variances <br />are required. Mr. Allain did not think the applicant anticipated that the boat trailer would be as <br />long as it is when his house was being built. He also believed that the applicant would put a light <br />on it at some point. He thought the applicant would be able to fit the boat trailer in it without any <br />other equipment. Mr. Allain did not support the initial variance approval but was unsure of what <br />he felt about the current proposal. Mr. Raig and Mr. Allain pointed out that the neighbors would