04/21/2011 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1VIr. Meder moved, seconded by Ms. Sabo, to table Mark Weston of 4403 West Ranchview so a property maintenance inspection can be conducted and so that the owner can be present which passed 3-0. Scott Ma2o; 23138 Stoneybrook Proposal consists of installing an HVAC condenser in the side yard. The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for no screening; code requires unit to be screened by shrubbery or trees so as not to be visible from front property line, applicant shows no screening; Section 1355.04. 2. A variance for an HVAC unit exceeding maximum sound levels; code permits 60 dba, applicant shows sound levels exceeding 60 dba; Section 1355.06. 3. A variance for a HVAC being within the side yard setback, code requires 5 foot applicant shows 3 feet. Mr. Mago was sworn in. He said he purchased the foreclosed home last November and after replacing the furnace they found that the existing air conditioner was not compatible with the new furnace. Therefore they must replace the air conditioning unit. They would like to place the new unit in the same location the original unit was placed. To move the unit to code the unit would be 5 feet inward on his back patio. He asked to be allowed to place his unit on the same slab as the old unit. He is willing to install shrubs or fencing which ever the board prefers and noted that the outer edge of the unit will be 17 feet from the neighbor's wall. The neighbor signed a note stating they had no objections to the neighbor's request. Mr. O'Malley said there had been a misnotification as there should have been a third variance for the unit being less than 5 feet from the sideyard line. However notices were sent to all abutting neighbors therefore the board could rule on the matter. Mrs. Sabo reviewed the variances required for the applicant. One is for not wanting to screen the unit from being viewed which Mr. Mago said it would be screened as he intends to plant shrubs however if the board prefer a fence he would do fencing. Mrs. Sabo said second variance is for the sound exceeding maximum 60 dba. Mr. Mago said the contractor said that it would be very hard to find a condensing unit that is less than 60 dba no matter how efficient. Mr. Mitchell said shrubs would decrease the sound levels however even plants require distance from the unit for air circulation. He is concerned if there are window openings on that side of the neighbor's home it would be very loud. Mr. Mago said that side of the neighbor's home along the first floor has no windows and is the garage. Mr. Mitchell said the unit is not grandfathered as it is a new unit and the unit can be placed to code. Mrs. Sabo asked law to advise whether or not the condensing unit could/should be grandfathered. Mr. O'Malley said grandfathering was more of a zoning concept then a building concept in terms of regulations. If the city allowed new units to be grandfathered then it could never enforce not exceeding the 60 dba requirements. He advised the board that code requires condensing units in the rear yard or in a side yard which has more than 10 feet. Mr. Meder asked the commissioner if the original unit which was on the side of the home if not changed is grandfathered and Mr. Mitchell said yes. Mr. Meder then noted that older condenser units were much louder then what was being proposed. He asked if the condenser would meet code moving it behind the fence. Mr. Mitchell said it would be out of the side yard but would still be required to be 5 feet off the property line. Mr. Meder said the condensing unit sits atop a concrete pad it is not a fixed structure so the lines could be extended along the outside 2