06/05/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A variance the shed size can be constructed to code or the owner can lceep what he already has. Board members did not believe the spirit and intent of the zoning code would be observed granting the variance. Mrs. Sergi advised that the zoning code for shed sizes was just updated less than a year ago and 40% larger then allowed is substantial. The character of the neighborhood would be altered as the size is too large for the lot. Mrs. Sergi moved seconded by IVIs. Rudolph to grant 1VIichael & Eva Neeson of 25147 Antler Drive a 32 square foot variance for a storage shed larger than allowed, code permits 80 sq ft; applicant shows 112 sq ft, which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 (d)(1) and was unanimously Denied 4-0. Gino Trapletti; 25140 Chase Drive: (Ward 2) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of rear yard coverage. The following variance is requested: 1. A 33.6 sq. ft. variance for excessive square feet of accessory structures in rear yard. Code permits 528.9 sq. ft.; applicant shows 562.5 sq. ft., which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02(d)(3). Note: Originally, declc was allowed with the understanding that the shed would be removed to stay under permitted square footage. Mr. Trapletti the owner and Ms. Srail a neighbor each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Trapletti said they are just moving the existing shed to accommodate the new declc. Their intent at first was to remove the shed and store the pool and yard equipment somewhere else but could not find room for the storage needed. Therefore they would lilce to lceep their shed for the storage. He noted that the shed size meets zoning code as will the placement of the shed however it exceeds rear yard coverage. The only other option he has is to place the shed atop his declc to meet code. Ms. Srail said she was present to support her neighbor and commended her neighbor for his work improving the site and felt the shed was warranted. Mr. Trapletti said he had a letter from his east neighbor supporting the shed (note: said letter was never submitted for the record). Mr. Conway said the existing shed size and location is allowed by code but exceeds lot coverage by 5% which he did not believe to be substantial. He noted that he would rather see a variance granted for the shed than see a 10'x10' shed placed atop a deck to comply with code. Ms. Rudolph noted that the yard was crowded and loolced like there was little to no greenspace as there is a pool, deck, playground equipment and trampoline already in the backyard. Mr. Trapletti said that the trampoline is dismantled every winter and stored. Ms. Rudolph said her initial response is to turn down the variance but the corrunissions concern of a shed atop a declc and the neighbor's presence to support the owner has validity. Mrs. Sergi agreed with Ms. Rudolph and was concerned that if there wasn't a shed the underside of the deck would become a storage area which would be unsightly. Mrs. Diver and Mrs. Bellido both voiced their concerns at the crowdedness of the yard but did not want to see the underside of the deck used as storage or a shed atop the deck. Mrs. Diver voiced the board felt the area could be used without a variance but the request was not substantial. Mrs. Sergi said although there was playground equipment and a trampoline neither items are permanent therefore could not be talcen into consideration when reviewing the case. Board members did not feel the shed would be a detriinent or change the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Sergi noted that upon entering the backyard the shed was not visible she had to look for the shed to see it. Board members did not Uelieve governmental services would be affected and it is assumed that all property owners have lcnowledge of zoning restrictions. Although the predicament can be precluded without a variance 2