Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward to review the variances <br />requested. The oath was administered to Mr. Cieslak, the contractor, and Mr. <br />Legarth, and Mr. Yaeger, neighbors whom came forward to review the request. <br />Mr. Gomersall questioned if any of the board members had any comments. As <br />there were no comments from the board members, Mr. Gomersall asked if the <br />neighbors had any questions for the applicant. Mr. Legarth and Mr. Yaeger <br />requested to see the plans as they had not seen the plans. Mr. Cieslak reviewed for <br />the neighbors what would be done. He suggested that the existing patio is going <br />to be replaced. There will be a footer, new slab with drain tiles and the water will <br />drain into the drain tile. This will improve the patio and the water problem that <br />existed. No further comments were made. <br />J. Konold motioned to approve Richard Frankovich of 24185 Carla Lane his <br />request for variance 1123.12. Which consists of erecting a patio enclosure and <br />that the following variance be granted: A 9 foot variance for rear setback (code <br />requires 50 feet, applicant shows 41 foot). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 <br />section 1135.08(a). The motion was seconded by, W. Kremzar and unanimously <br />approved. Variance Granted. <br />10. Kenneth Grav; 3312 Clanue Rd. <br />Request. for variance 1123.12. The proposal consists of replacing garage. The <br />following variances are requested: 1. A 9 foot variance for rear set back (code requires 10 foot, applicant shows 1 <br />foot) section 1135.02 O. <br />2. A 4 foot variance for side setback (code requires 5 foot, applicant shows 1 <br />foot) section 1135.02 O <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.02 C. <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward to review the variances <br />requested. The oath was administered to Mr. Gray, the owner who came forward <br />to review the request. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the garages proposed location <br />would be to close to the lot line, as it could not be maintained. Mr. Maloney <br />indicated that even if the neighbors agree to the proposal, if they sell their home <br />the new owners might not be happy. He would like to see the shed moved to 5 <br />feet away frorn the lot line. Mr. Gray indicated that if they put the garage one foot <br />in it would be even to the existing garage of his neighbors. Mr. Gomersall <br />questioned if the applicant would have drains on the garage to make sure it drained <br />onto his own property. Mr. Gray answered "yes". Mr. Kremzar questioned if the <br />old garage .was in further on the lot or was it also 1 inch from the property line. <br />Mr. Gray indicated that it was right on the property line so the neighbor would <br />gain 1 foot. Mr. Conway suggested that if the rear or side neighbor put up a fence <br />the structure will not be maintainable. Mr. Gareau questioned if the overhangs <br />would be in the neighbor's property. He also suggested that if a fence was built it <br />would not be maintainable. Mr. Gomersall questioned if the applicant would move <br />it lOft in from the rear and 3ft from the side. Mr. Gray indicated that that would <br />be a waist of space. Mr. Koberna indicated that with a trust the overhang would <br />be in the neighbor's yard at lfoot. Mr. Gray indicated that he would move the <br />8