10/07/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

permit to add to a non-confornung building be granted. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1165.02 B 1). J. 1Vlaloney and unanimously approved. Special permat Granted. 7. Kamall Odetallah: 5284 Devon Drive: " Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a shed. The following variance is required: 1) An 84 square foot variance to have a shed, (Code permits 84sq ft, applicant shows 168sq ft. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 D 1). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mr. Odetallah, the applicant and Ms. Webster Vitale a concerned neighbor came forward. Mr. Gomersall asked if Ms. Webster Vitale understood what the applicant was requesting. Ms. Webster Vitale indicated that she was not clear on what was being done. Mr. Gomersall reviewed Mr. Odetallah's request with Ms. Webster Vitale. Ms. Webster Vitale suggested that she would not like to see a shed that large be permitted as it would be in her line of sight. Mr. Gomersall suggested that the applicant was with in code as far as the rear and sideyard requirements it was just the size that was not within code. Mr. Kremzar questioned how big Ms: Webster Vitale's she was. Ms. Webster Vitale indicated that her shed was under code and measured 8 foot X 10 foot. Mr. Maloney commented that the applicant was within code besides the overall size and he felt the shed would be fine. Mr. Gomersall indicated that he thought the size was a bit much and questioned if Mr. Odetallah would consider reducing the size. Mr. Odetallah suggested that if the size was lowered he wouldn't be able to put all of his yard tools away, and for the past 5 years he has not been able to park both his cars in his garage. Mr. Konold suggested that if the shed was cut down in size it would still be in Ms. Webster Vitale's line of sight. He feels the size of the shed is warranted. Mr. Gomersall indicated that he would accept a 10 X 12 shed. Mr. Gareau reviewed that the size of a backyard determines the size of shed allowed. Mr. Conway suggested that the applicant needed a variance, because of the size of the patio on the back of the house. If the patio were not in place the applicant would be pretty close to what he would be allowed. Mr. Konold questioned what size shed could the applicant live with, in order to compromise. NIr. Odetallah questioned why he could not have the shed he is requesting. Mr. Conway commented that another audience member would like to address the case. Ms. Christafaris came forward from the audience to take part in the proposal. Mr. Gomersall swore Ms. Christafaris in. Mr. Gamersall asked if she had a shed and were it was located. Ms. Christafaris reviewed were her shed was located. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the neighbors feel the shed it is too big. Mr. Gareau reviewed that the code indicates a shed can be no closer to the rear lot line than 10 feet. Mr. Gomersall indicated that he could reduce the request in size or have the board vote on the request as is. Mr. Odetallah suggested being allowed to have a 12 x 12 shed. W. Kremzar suggested 10 feet across the back and 14 feet in the front. W. Gomersall suggested that 10 feet across the back and 14 feet in the front would be acceptable. Ms. Webster Vitale questioned how close the shed would be to the sideyard and rear yard lot lines. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the applicant was within code except for the overall size and would be a single story shed. Mr. Kremzar indicated that as the size was reduced the height of the roof would also be reduced. Mr. Conway indicated that the height of the shed could not exceed 12 feet in height. Mr. Gomersall questioned if the applicant agreed to the shed being 10 feet in the back and 14 feet in the front. Mr. Odetallah commented that he agreed to the size suggested by Mr. Gomersall. J. Maloney motioned to grant Kamall Odetallah of 5284 Devon Drive his request for variance (1123.12). as amended and agreed to which consists of a shed and that the following variance be granted: 5