08/03/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the garage will be fire rated to meet city codes. M. Diver seconded the motion, roll call: J. Maloney, M. Diver, T. Kelly, J. Burke - yes and N. Sergi - no. Variance Granted. 3. Tim Szczeperski; 23958 Elm Rd.: (WRD # 4) A). Request for a special permit to add to a non-conforming building, section 1165.02. Exiting garage is located 1 foot 6 inches from side property line and code requires 5-feet. B). Request for variance. The proposal consists of an addition to existing garage. The following variance is requested: 1. A 62 square foot variance for a detached garage larger than code allows, (code permits 750 sq ft, applicant shows 812 sq ft), which is in violation of section 1135.02(C)(1). The following came forward and were sworn in to review the request: Tim Szczeperski, owner, Marty Mooney, neighbor. Mr. Szczeperski would like to erect a 10x14 addition to garage. He is asking for a variance for 62 square feet. Mrs. Diver questioned why Mr. Szczeperski could not put up a shed, as the lot is 350 feet deep from front to back. Mr. Burke questioned if the addition would have a back entrance. It will be one garage, with a storage area. He will not use the space for a business or car storage. Mr. O'Malley explained to Board that the current structure was grandfathered into the code. The original addition does not adhere to the code; the new addition should comply with the code. Mr. O'Malley also asked the Board to address the standards of the special permit. Mrs. Diver read the copy of inemo for non-conforming building. Mr. Burke noted that the drawings were drawn up for the garage, they are not specs. Mr. Szczeperski commented that he had a variance from 8 or 9 years ago. Mr. Mooney, his neighbor, spoke in favor of Mr. Szczeperski, and mentioned that he had spoken on behalf of Mr. Szczeperski for his first variance and helped build the addition years back. He is opposed to the current request for a variance as the garage will affect his property with respect to flooding as well as create an additional 10 foot wall against his property. It would be a total of a 38 foot wall along the side of the yard. Mr. Mooney also noted that it would possibly destroy his garden which has now been in place for three years. Mr. Mooney offered to assist Mr. Szczeperski in pouring a concrete pad to build a shed. Mr. Burke felt Mr. Mooney's concerns were valid. Mrs. Diver noted that Mr. Szczeperski does have a deep lot which would allow him to build further back. The current proposal would alter the character of the neighborhood with respect to his neighbor. Erecting a shed would resolve the problem. Mr. Maloney stated he would not need a variance for a shed, and the flat lands and flooding could create a hardship for the neighbors. Mr. Burke noted that the close proximity to the neighbors could be a problem. The shed will be 1Ox14 and should it remairi 5 feet within the property line, and 10 feet from the rear property line, it will be up to code. N. Sergi moved to grant Tim 5zczeperski of 23958 Elm Rd the following requests: A). A special permit to add to a non-conforming building, section 1165.02. B). A request for variance, which consists of: 1. A 62 square foot variance for a detached garage larger than code allows, (code permits 750 sq ft, applicant shows 812 sq ft), which is in violation of 1135.02(C)(1). T. Kelly seconded the motion, which was unanimously denied. Variance Denied Mr. O'Malley reviewed that the board could make a separate motion for the special permit, however due to the variance being denied it could render the special permit request null and void. 4. Nguyen Huong; 4481 Ranchview Ave.: (WRD # 1) Request for variance. The proposal consists of a deck. The following variances are requested: 1. A 4%z foot variance for an accessory structure (deck) too close to side lot line, (code requires 5' applicant show 6") (see note), which is in violation of 1135.02(d)(4). Note: Deck was built without a permit. 2