09/07/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to fit what is kept in the shed. The shed is not a prefab kit it was design and constructed specifically to meet their needs. They believe that the shed is esthetically pleasing and an asset to the neighborhood. Mrs. Diver asked why a permit was not sought when constructing the shed. Mr. Guist said he had lived in his home for 30 years and when he put in the first shed he did not require a pernut and did not know he would require a permit now. Mrs. Diver asked how the applicants found out they were required to have a permit for their shed. Mr. Guist said he was advised by the city that a complaint was submitted and that is how he found out. There is a fence behind the shed and beyond the fence is a creak so it is not visible to the rear neighbors. Mr. Burke advised that he did not like being in the position of addressing a shed after it is erected. He does not like granting or addressing variances after the fact period as it places the board in an awkward position. Mrs. Diver agreed with Mr. Burke and voiced a frustration of being placed into a position of addressing projects after the fact. Mr. Kelly agreed with the other board members and questioned if something could be done to make the residents more aware of what requires permits. 1VIrs. Sergi questioned the size of the shed. Mr. Guist reviewed that the length of the shed was 12 foot deep by 16 feet long and it is the depth of the shed which does not meet code. The 5 inch height is due to the pitch of the roof. Mr. O'Malley believed that the applicant could have possibly erected the shed under the old requirements in which his shed rnay have in fact been within code, although the new chart for his lot size does not. Mr. Rymarczyk advised that under the old code the applicant would have been allowed 120 feet. Board members voiced that they would like something done by the city to better inform residents and businesses of what is required by code regarding what does and does not require permits. J. Burke moved to grant William Guist of 3936 Dover Center Road his request for variance (1123.12), which consists of an ezisting shed and the following variances are granted: 1. A 60 square foot variance for a shed larger than code allows, (code permits 120 sq ft, applicant shows 180 sq ft), section (1135.02 D1)). 2. A 5 inch variance for a shed higher than code allows, (code permits 91, applicant shows 9' 511), section (1135.02 (Dl)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (Dl)). T. Kelly seconded the motion, roll call on the motion; J. Burk, N. Sergi, T. Kelly: yes and M.1)iver no. Variances Granted. 4. Allen Duff; 6197 Park Ridse Rd: (WRD # 3) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new fence. The following variances are requested: 1. A 20 foot variance for a fence located in required sideyard setback on a corner lot, (code requires 25', applicant show 5'), section (1135.02 (F2)). 2. An 18 inch variance for a fence taller than code allows in sideyard setback, code pernuts 30", applicant shows 48"), section (1135.02 (F1)). 3. A variance for a fence less than 50% open in a side setback, code requires 50% open, applicant shows solid), section (1135.02 (F 1)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 (F 1)) and (1135.02 (F 2)). Mr. Duff and Miss. Hollinger the owners were present to be sworn in and address the board. Mr. Duff advised that a deck would be constructed and the fence is needed to keep the dog in the yard. Miss Hollinger reviewed that her dog was from a rescue shelter and one of the requirements for ownuig a rescued dog is providing a fenced in yard with at least a 4 foot fence. Mr. Duff advised that the affected neighbor already has bushes higher than the proposed 4 foot fence. Pictures were passed out of the large dog and the existing area. A photo of an existing style fence which they would like to use was passed out. He advised that a couple of his neighbors were present in support of the fence. Mr. Burke questioned if the 4 foot fence would be high enough to restrict the dog as it looked like it could easily jump a 4 foot fence. Miss Hollinger assured the board that the dog would not jump the fence. Mr. O'Malley reviewed what code stipulates and the number of variances 4