07/12/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

what is'allowed by code and the neighbors garage was very close too the property line. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the owner's cars fit into the garage and the pictures presented represented the additional space within the garage. Mr. Laurent said their cars fit into the garage but was very crowded. Mrs. Diver felt the size of the shed was too large for the property and the request was double what was just increased less than a year ago per city council. Board members said the variances were substantial and the property could yield a reasonable return without the variance. Mrs. Sergi did not feel the variance was warranted and the character of the neighborhood would not be affected. Governmental services would not be affected and a shed can be built to code. The spirit and intent of the code would not be observed granting the variance. The lots in the area are very small and the board has no objections to replacing the existing shed but what is requested is too much. Mr. Menser said he would be open to allowing a 10' x 10' shed and all members voiced their agreements. Mr. Laurent was asked if he would be willing to compromise and construct a 10' x 10' shed. Mr. Laurent said he didn't think he should have to seek a variance as he is not covering more than 20% of his rear yard with the shed. Mr. Conway explained that the 20% rear yard coverage is not what governs what is allowed for sheds. Shed sizes are based on just over 2% rear yard coverage. Moved to approve Robert & Gloria Laurent of 24138 LeBern Drive their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a shed and the following variance, is granted as amended: 1. A 20 square foot variance for shed larger than allowed, (10' x 101), (code permits 80 sq ft, applicant shows 100 sq ft). 2. A 3 inch variance for height of shed, code allows 8' applicant shows 8' 3"). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (D1)). R. Menser seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 8. Br'ian & Janice Tench; 24357 Woodmere Dr. (WRD# 2) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a swimming pool and the following variance is requested: 1. A 136 square foot variance for swimming pool in rear yard, (code permits 728 sq ft, applicant shows 864 sq ft(garage, deck, pool). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (D3)). Note: Home owner is aware power lines need to be moved if variance is,granted. Ms. Tench the owner and Ms. Turner a neighbor each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Ms. Tench said that a blowup pool was used until the chipmunks chewed through the lining. She was granted a variance for a 15 foot round pool two years earlier but did not act on the variance therefore she has returned to asked for it again. Ms. Diver said reviewing the minutes` of the meeting 2 years earlier there was no variance granted and she asked if she understood that if the variance was granted the power lines would have to be moved. Ms. Tench said the lines were run underground and the power company only needed to connect and power the line.. Ms. Sergi said the property looked remarkably better than what it did two years earlier and commended the owner on her improvements. Mrs. Turner asked if the owner's pole and lines would be moved nearer to her yard. Ms. Tench said the poles would not be moved and the lines are buried and the rear swing set will be removed from the yard. Ms. Sergi felt the property could yield a reasonable return and property used without a variance. The variance looks to be substaritial however due to the deck and garage sizes added to the request it is reasonable. Without the rear deck there would be no access to the home and there is no pool made smaller than what is being requested. Mrs. Diver noted what was referred to as the deck is a brick structure with cement pad and is the homes only rear access point. Mr. Menser did not feel the character of the neighborhood would be affected or governmental services impeded. Mrs. Diver 6