Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Ms. Capek said she purchased her home in 2003 because she appreciated the park-like nature of <br />the property and area. She has a direct view of the proposed building and was concerned about <br />its height. She thought there may be business-associated reasons for the building. She did not <br />think the building should be allowed just to store their boat. She was concerned about lighting on <br />the building spilling onto her property. A fence was built around the perimeter of the property <br />and has impacted the flow of wildlife through the neighborhood. She is not opposed to a smaller <br />building in compliance with city ordinances. <br />Mr. Lewis said he and some of the neighbors have similar barns. He did not believe the applicant <br />would use it for business purposes. He did not think Ms. Capek would be able to see anything <br />from her property since there is a six-foot privacy fence. He did not think the building would be <br />visible from the street. He suggested that the existing spotlights be aimed to not shine on the <br />neighboring properties. <br />Ms. Abahazi said they have lived in their home for 45 years. The six-foot fence blocks the <br />natural beauty of the property. A spotlight on the back of their home shines into their yard and <br />she is concerned about more disturbances to her property. <br />Ms. Smik noted that the back of their property was being used as a dumping ground and the <br />fence was installed to prevent neighbors from dumping. She did not think the building would be <br />visible from the rear neighbors. Mr. Allain reminded everyone that the fence issue was not the <br />purpose of this meeting. <br />Ms. Mustafa stated that her family spends the maj ority of their time in the rear of their home and <br />the proposed building would be visible. She believed the boat could be stored elsewhere. <br />Ms. Lewis said the applicant is very accommodating to the neighbors and they keep their <br />property very nice. <br />Ms. Lenart was in support of the proposal. <br />Ms. Capek confirmed she would be able to see the building and if a spotlight was installed she <br />would be able to see it due to the height of the building. She believed the applicant was trying to <br />avoid paying docking fees to store their boat. Mr. Gareau clarified that the applicant has the right <br />to come before the board and request a variance. <br />Mr. Aspery said the applicant has already been granted a variance permitting a 1,280 square foot <br />detached garage and 836 square foot attached garage for a total combined garage space of 2,116 <br />square feet. This total exceeds the allowable garage area for the property by 1,366 square feet <br />and offers the applicant a viable alternative to accomplish storage of their equipment. The <br />accessory structure currently proposed exceeds the minimum required floor area for a one-story <br />dwelling in B One Family Residence district by 236 square feet: the minimum area for the <br />district is 1,300 square feet and the applicant is currently proposing an accessory structure that <br />exceeds this area. The Planning Department does not support this variance request.