Laserfiche WebLink
The following variance is requested: <br />1. A 10 foot variance for rear yard setback, (code requires 50', applicant shows 40'). Which is in <br />violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.08 (a)). <br />Mr. & Mrs. Morgan, the owners and Mr. Miller the contractor each came forward to be sworn in and <br />review the request. Mr. Morgan reviewed that the deck was in place when he purchased his home. <br />However due to the insects they would like to enclose a section (80%) of their existing deck so they <br />can enjoy their backyard. The existing deck is currently 40-feet from the rear property line. There <br />was trees along the rear property line which have since died and been removed. Mrs. Diver asked <br />who installed the chainlink. fence. Mr. Morgan advised that the fence belonged to the golf course <br />and the trees were his but when the golf course was constructed the trees died. They would like to <br />continue to use as section of the deck as is in conjunction with the new enclose. Mr. Burke asked <br />how much deck would remain. Mr. Morgan advised that there would be about 100 square feet of <br />deck remaining. Photos were passed out showing the condition of the backyard and the existing <br />deck in question. Mrs. Morgan advised that they contacted the golf course managers to ask if they <br />had any concerns but they have not heard back from them and their neighbors have no objections. <br />J. Surke moved to grant Ed & Pat Morgan of 6072 Sandpiper Lane their request for variance <br />(1123.12), which consists of a new patio room and that the following variance is granted: <br />1. A 10 foot variance for rear yard setback, (code requires 501, applicant shows 401). Which is <br />in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.08 (a)). N. Sergi seconded the motion which was <br />unanimously approved. Variance Granted <br />3. Douglas Thompson; 5479 Columbia Road: (WRD # 4) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new shed. <br />The following variances are requested: <br />1. A variance for a shed located in the sideyard, (code does not permit, applicant shows sideyard), <br />section (1135.02 (D 1)). <br />2. A 72 square foot variance for a shed larger than code allows, (code permits 120 sq ft, applicant <br />shows 192 sq ft), section (1135.02 (D 1)). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.02 (D 1)). . <br />Mr. Thompson the owner came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Thompson <br />reviewed that he abuts the metro park and due to the severe slop of his backyard the shed can not be <br />placed in his backyard. He would like to place the proposed shed on the side of his home and he has <br />no neighbors which abut him just the park. Mrs. Diver questioned why the applicant needed a shed <br />72 square feet larger than allowed by code. Mr. Thompson said he does a lot of woodwork and to <br />put his equipment in the shed it needs to be larger. A photo of the type of structure he wanted to <br />build was presented to the members. Mrs. Diver voiced that the applicants' home is very close to the <br />street and the proposed shed would be very visible as well. Mr. Burke felt that a 12' x 16' shed was <br />very large for the lot and asked if the shed was a kit. Board members agreed that a 16 foot wide <br />shed was too large for the lot. Mr. Burke asked if anyone from the Metro Park had contacted him or <br />had he contacted them regarding the placement of the shed, or if there were any restrictions <br />concerning the Metro Parks. Mr. Thompson indicated that he had not spoken to the Metro Parks. <br />Mr. Rymarczyk asked if the deck could be built under the walkout deck. Mr. Thompson advised that <br />the area below the rear deck is a retaining wall. Mrs. Diver advised that if the size was to code they <br />could understand the need to have it in the sideyard but the proposed shed is too large for the lot. <br />Mr. Thompson suggested he could build a 12' x 14' shed and place it right next to the fence along <br />the deck possibly. The board asked if the applicant wanted to return with an alternative location and <br />shed size. Mr. Thompson suggested the smallest size shed he could use is a 12' x 14'. Mrs. Diver <br />asked the applicant were he did his woodwork now. Mr. Thompson suggested he did all his work in <br />2