09/02/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Engineer, and they have a way of figuring out this type of thing to meet City Codes as well as State Codes. If he gets the certification from the,;engineer, who knows more than we do here and meets the code, as well as brings it before the proper commissions, he doesn't think the board can do anything until that procedure is met. Ms. Hopson commented that when she built the deck on her property, she was told by Mr. Conway in the building department tliat anything in the flood way, which the bridge would be, has to go through Fema and a hydraulic anaYysis would have to be done. She presented the board with a copy of the code she was given. Mr. Maloney indicated that the board had a copy of the code and indicated that the conversation was getting off track again. Mr. Koberna indicated that, it is strictly up to the Engineering/Building Department to make sure the applicant adheres to Fema and City codes. Mr. Moyse commented "that IVIs. Hopson built a bridge to go across the creek and she is standing here saying if I build a bridge across the creek it's not O.K.". He asked Ms. Hopson " if you can span the flood way then why cant F. Ms. Hopson asked Mr. Moyse "°if he would span the flood way without going into it". Mr. Konold commented that it would be up to the Engineers to make a recommendation not individual people. Mr. Maloney indicated that the way the plan is proposed right now to the board, asking for the two variances at this time, he can not go with 3feet on the North side line, that would have to be changed. He would like to see the Engineering aspects presented and cleared through our Engineering Department before the board moves forward with the applicants proposal, so that some of the criteria that has been raised at this meeting will fall in line. Mr. Gareau indicated that the board didn't have the authority to place criteria requirements as far as approval is concerned, based upon what the Engineering Department and Building Department does. The board has to assume that the variance stands on it's own. Mr. Koberna strongly commented that the board receives their packet with a week to look at it, and then tonight a new plan is set at our seats, right befare the meeting starts and only given less then 15 minutes to look at all the submittal. Mr. Gareau indicated that if the board was not satisfied that they had enough time to review the plane for whatever reason. Then by all means the board should postpone the proposal until they do. But don't postpone it for the purposes of Engineering and for purposes of someone looking at the flood plane. Look at it for the sole purpose of what you have before you. That being is this project entitled to a variance, because of the size, shape and topography of this land, which is not basically shared by others. Is there a hardship that endures to this land because of its size, which is pretty obvious. Mr. Maloney asked if the applicant would need a special pernut for the bridge. Mr. Conway indicated that the applicant would need an additional variance for construction of the structure. Mr. Koberna asked if the variance for the bridge would have to be decided to night or could it be at a later date. Mr. Conway indicated that he didn't have an idea of exactly what the structure was at this point. Mr. Koberna commented that is my point. He suggested that the Law Director was indicating that was a mute point. Mr. Conway suggested that it was up to the board as to whether or not they wanted to include another variance into what has already been requested. Mr. Maloney suggested there had to be access to the property and the bridge is going to be one of the accesses to it. Mr. Conway indicated that the bridge is going to be the only way the applicant is going to have access, the way it looks. Mr. Gareau suggested that the Building official was indicating that, in order to get to the property there is going to have to be a bridge. It is not due to the design of the bridge, but the mere fact that it is a structure which is to be located within the 50-foot front yard setback. As a result of that, there may in fact according to the decision of the Building official be a need for a variance, because there is a structure within the 50 foot setback, not how you build it, or design it or anything else. If that is not on the table now, and for that reason the board wants to table it until the next meeting, fine. When it comes back, the board won't be looking at the pylons and things of that nature, as that is strictly up to the EngineeringBuilding Department. Mr. Maloney asked the applicant if he would like to have the board vote on the two variances as presented, or would he like the board to table it and include the additional request of the bridge. Mr. Moyse indicated "that basically he understood were the board members were coming from, as they don't see a bridge drawn up, engineer drawings and everything that has to happen. As far as he goes he doesn't want to get into that expense, and everything like that, until he knows he can put a bridge across the creek. If the board wants to approve the side lot clearance whatever they're going to do there. Then approve the bridge subject too him meeting the building and engineering and state certified drawings from an engineer, from a registered surveyor that everything elevation wise it's not going to interfere with