09/02/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.., support. Mr. Denham indicated that he would be using columns for support only. Mr. Conway questioned if there was any intention of:;screening in the proposed structure. Mr. Denham commented "no". Mr. Conway commented that, then this would strictly be an extended canopy. Mr. Denham indicated that Mr. Conway was correct. Mr. -Koberna asked if the extended structure was lowered to accommodate the neighbors. Mr. Denham indicated that Mr. Koberna was correct. Mr. Koberna questioned if the height of the structure would be 9.6 feet high. Mr. Denham indicated that he was correct. Mr. Conway suggested that the notch is to follow the angular sideline. Mr. Denham indicated that Mr. Conway was correct. Ms. Duncan suggested that there was already additions that abut right up to the fence now. Mr. Conway reviewed the pictures with Ms. Duncan and indicated that Mr. Denham was not right on the property line. He reviewed that the wall of the structure was 4 feet away from the property line and that the corner projection of the roof is at the property line. NOTE DUE TO A TECHNICAL ERROR THE REMAINDER OF THE MINUTES ARE W12I'TTEN F120M THE CLERKS NOTES ? Ms. Duncan suggested that the residents present at the meeting all abut the property and there are a lot of things on the lot that he never got a peimit to do. Mr. Conway suggested that there was a permit for the garage and porch that had been expanded on. Mr. Maloney reviewed the pernuts that had been granted. Ms. Duncan reviewed that most of the structures were added to without pernuts. Mr. Gareau suggested that if a gazebo was proposed which would not be attached to the home it might be easier to accept. Mr. Denham suggested that he was only trying to satisfy his neighbors and have a cover over his hot tub so he could use it throughout the year. Mr. Koberna indicated that even with all the work that is proposed to be done, the hot tub will still not be totally covered. He would rather see a tent canopy put over the structure. He suggested using a canopy again. Mr. Maloney inquired if Mr. Denham was set on the cover being attached to the current structure, and if he would be willing to consider a gazebo, thereby eliminating most of the variances needed. Mr. Denham indicated that he was firm about his request. Mr. Koberna asked all the neighbors how they felt about the proposal. All the neighbors present indicated they were against the proposal. W. Kremzar motioned to approve Patrick Denham of 28384 Aspen Drive his request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a wooden patio roof (attached) and that the following variances be granted: 1). A special pernut to add to a non-conforming building, (1165.02). 2). A variance to enlarge a non-conforming dwelling, (1165.02 B1). 3). A 1 foot variance for sideyard setback, (code requires Sft, applicant shows 4ft), (1135.07). 4). A 29 foot variance for rear yard setback, (code requires 50ft, applicant shows 21ft), (1135.08). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1165.02), (1135.08) and (1135.07). Note: A) Structure is built 1 inch from lot line. B) Other non-conforming structure pernuts are under former owners. The motion was seconded by, J. Konold. Roll call on the motion: J. Konold; yes, W. Kremzar; yes, J. Maloney; no, and T. Koberna; abstained. Variances Denied. IV ADJOURNMENT: T. Koberna motioned to accuse the absents of Chairman, Gomersail and adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by, J. Konold and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 9:45pm. Qt-+ing Clia}iman, John Maloney 4 Clerk of Commissions, Donna Rote 11