09/07/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

explained that they have a 10 x 10 foot metal shed which was there when they bought the home. The 10 x 10 existing shed is falling down and proven itself not large enough for the family's belongings. He explained that they request 5 feet instead of 10 feet off the back because if they push it out 10 feet it chops the back yard up somewhat and he needs a place for his son to play soccer. Mr. Maloney questioned the utility easement for the power lines. Mr. Carsey replied that they should be able to reach the lines. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned when the old shed would be removed. Mr. Carsey commented that it is his intention to take down the old shed as soon as possible seeing that it is an eyesore. W. Maloney commented that the board should incorporate into the motion that the old shed is to be removed within 30 days. 7. Konold motioned to approve William and Margaret Carsey of 4432 Camellia Ln. their request for variance (1123.12) with the addition that the old shed is to be taken down within 30 days. Which consists of constructing a shed and that the following variances be granted: 1) A 5 foot variance for rear yard setback (code requires 10 ft, applicant shows 5 ft), section (1135.02 (D) (4)). 2) A 36 square foot variance for maximum square footage for a shed (code permits 84 sq. ft, applicant shows 120 sq. ft), section (1135.02 (D) (1)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1135.02 D 4, and 1135.02 D 1. The motion was seconded by, W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. 7. 7ohn and Susan Webb (The Construction Team); 27010 Butternut Ridge Rd Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of an accessory structure. , The following variances are requested: 1) A 5 foot variance for rear yard setback (code requires 10 ft, applicant shows 5 ft), section (113.5.02 (D) (4)). 2. A 2-foot variance for building height (code permits 12 ft, applicant show 14 ft), section (1135.02-(C) (3)). 3. A 200 square foot variance for square foot coverage (code pernuts 200 sq. ft, applicant shows 400 sq. ft), section (1135.02 (D) (1)). NOTE: A) Existing structure at same location and square feet to be removed B) Pending Landmark Commission approval (meeting date 8/21/00). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1135.02 D 4, 1135.02 C 3, and 1135.02 D 1. Chairman, Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. The oath was administered to John and Susan Webb the owners and Beverly Nelson from the Construction Team who came forward to review the request. Ms. Nelson explained they were tearing down an existing building and passed out a picture of the existing building to the board members. The building is an old clucken coupe. She then commented that it is two stories high and is full of animals. The new building the Webb's would like to construct will be place in the same location as the building being removed. Mr. Maloney commented it is behind the garage and is not seen from the street at all. Mr. Koberna questioned the approval of the Landmarks Commission. NIs. Nelson explained that it was approved by Landmarks in August. W. Kremzax motioned to approve John and Susan Webb of 27010 Butternut Ridge Rd. their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of an accessory structure and that the following variances be granted: 1) A 5 foot variance for reax yard setback (code requires 10 ft, applicant shows 5 ft), section (1135.02 (D) (4)). 2) A 2 foot variance for building height (code permits 12 ft, applicant show 14 ft), section 4