08/06/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that once the property is put into Ms. Larsons name we would like to buy the property. We are here tonight to find out before we buy the properiy if the garage will remain or not. Ms. Larson indicated that in her divorce papers once the house was removed the land was to be put in her name. As of this date my X, Mr. Wells has not put the property in my name. Mr. Formeman stated if the garage is allowed to stay we are going to put up a fence, and do landscaping to make it look good. Mr. Gomersall suggested tliis property has not really been maintained by all the records we have seen, it has looked very trashy until just last week. Mr. Koberna asked if there were any provisions in the divorce documents that states a date in which the property has to be placed in your name. Ms. Larson refened to her divorce papers which stated the property is to be put in her name once the house is removed. Mr. Gomersall asked when was the house removed. Ms. Lasrson thought it was the last week of June. The following residents expressed concems Mr. & Mrs. Dorouy, Mrs. Cooney, Ms. I.ally, and Mr. Lieb. Their concerns were as follows: The property has been a mess for eight years. It is against code to have a garage on a property without a house. We don't want to look at any type of fence. If the land was going to be developed, such as putting a house on the property then we could see keeping the garage. It has been an eye sore for some time now. Mr. Wells indicated the reason Ms. Larson has not received the land in her name is that I have until September 1, 1998 to remove my tlungs from the garage. As I have not had access to the garage to remove my things they are still there. Mr. Wells expressed concems over Mr. & Mrs. Foremans property, and Mr. Kobema stated we are not here to discuss that property so you must stick to speaking in regards to your lot. Mr. & Mrs. Foreman indicated we don't have a problem if the garage has to come down, but we would like to laiow tonight one way or the other so we don't pay for a garage that has to come down. Mr. Koberna suggested as it stands right now we should keep with the intent of the law, and tlie garage should come down. J. Maloney moved to grant, Pauline J. Larson (Wells) 5955 Burns Road, Representative; Gairy Foreman, 5971 Burns Road): Their request for variance (1123.12). Request variance to maintain an accessory use building on a property that does not contain a dwelling. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02. Accessory use buildings are not peimitted prior to the construction of the dwelling. The motion was seconded by T. Koberna, and unaninaously denied. Variance Denied. 6. Larry Chung 4034 Canterbury Road Request for variance (1123.12). Request the following variances: 1) A 19 foot variance to have a 6 foot fence that intrudes into the setback on a corner lot (1135.02 f-2); and 2) A 19 foot, 4 inch variance for a shed that has been built in a side yard of a corner lot (1135.02 d-1 & d-5). Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section(s) 1135.02 (f-2) and 1135.02 (d-1 & d-5). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admiuisrtered to Mr. & Mrs. Chung. Mr. Gomersall reviewed the variances being asked for. Mrs. Chung indicated when we purchased the house in 1993 there was a fence and shed on the property. Mr. Gomersall asked if either the shed or fence was moved. Mrs. Chung suggested the fence has been moved out some and the shed builders slightly moved the shed over. Heartland put up the shed, and we thought that they would be taking care of the permit to build it. We put up the fence not knowing that we would need a permit. Mr. Chung indicated we have had a lot of work done on the properiy. We had concrete work done, and when the inspector came out a permit was put on the shed and we thought that was the O.K to leave it there and poor the concrete. Mr. Gomersall informed Mr. & Mrs. Chung that the inspector for the concrete work is different from the fence inceptor, as well as the shed inspector. Mrs. Chung suggested she had spoken to her abutting neighbors and they were in favor of what they were doing, and didn't know why they were even contacted regarding their variances. Mr. Chung reminded the board that if Heartland would've gotten the proper permit, and the shed had been inspected before the concrete was pored we could've had things moved to make sure it was within code. Mr. Maloney indicated we have all been put into a very awkward situation. We have worked hard to stick to the City Codes. We could have you remove the shed Mr. Gomersall indicated. the