09/17/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

between both fences which is in violation of section 1369.03 (A (3)) and was unanimously approved 3-0. Robert Pritchard; 25930 Kennedv Ridge Road: Proposal consists of replacing existing non-conforming air conditioning condenser and the following variance is requested: A variance to install an air conditioning condenser within the sideyard setback along the east side property line, which is in violation of section 1355.03. Mr. & Mrs. Pritchard were sworn in and Mr. Pritchard said the condenser is on the east side of the home not west as stated. They are replacing the existing condenser and furnace during the rebate incentive period as both are quite old. They had the original condenser installed in the late 80's along the east side of the home because the yard severely slopes downward away from the back of the home. A letter from the abutting neighbor and photos of the back of the home were submitted. The neighbor's letter stated she did not object to the location of the condenser. Mr. Mitchell reviewed building departments files showed that in 2002 a permit for air conditioning ductwork was pulled and then in 2004 a site survey was submitted which does not show the condenser along the east side of the home. Mr. Pritchard said in 2002 a dormer was added to the home which required ductwork and the 2004 survey was for the rear yard landscaping which was competed and he's not sure why the survey didn't show the condenser which was in place. Mr. Althen said he though condensers were allowed on the sideyard if it's not visible from the street and neither the existing nor new condenser would be visible unless the landscaping is removed. Mr. Mitchell said although the condenser is not visible from the street the proposed condenser would only be 2 feet off the property line which is why the permit was denied. Mr. Althen said he objected to a condenser being installed 2 feet from the property line regardless if it is visible or not. Mr. Pritchard said the back of the home has a 3 foot decline and the condenser could not be placed along the back. Mr. Althen said if the condenser has to be 1 foot from the house to service and the condenser itself is 3 feet wide the 6 foot side yard would only be 2 feet which is unacceptable. Mr. Jarachovic said shelves were available which could be connected to the back of the home to support and keep the condenser level. Mrs. Pritchard said the downspout at the back east corner and drain tiles could not support a condenser. A discussion ensued regarding the size and distance from the home and whether or not a condenser with the same rating but narrower could be installed to allow a 3 foot setback and the applicants said the condenser could not be any smaller or it would not meet their needs. Mr. Althen questioned if the matter could be tabled to allow the owners the opportunity to finci out if a narrower condenser is available or if it would be possible to run the condenser to a shelf at the back east corner of the home and Mr. O'Malley advised that the owners could agree to be tabled or they could chose to be addressed as submitted. Mr. Pritchard said the rebate is only for the condenser size chosen which is required to meet the cooling needs of the homes size. 1VIr. Altlien questioned if the board was within their right to grant relief and limit the sideyard distance to a specific distance and Mr. O'Malley said it was within the board authority to set a specified distance. Mr. Althen said the neighbor could install a privacy fence and if the condenser is two feet away it would impeded it from working properly and the area couldn't be maintained. Mrs. Sabo questioned if the current condenser was the same size and Mr. Prichard said it was not as 2