09/06/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1) A variance for two additional wall signs (#1 and #2) (code permits l, applicant shows 3), section (1163.27 A). 2) A 75 sq. ft. variance of excessive signage allowable for this building (code permits 55 sq. ft., applicant shows 130 sq. ft.), section (1163.24 B). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1163.27 A and 1163.24 B. Conciition: There are to be no window signs added to this project. The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Varianees Granted 9/6/01. 3. Paul & Elaine Muskin26949 Sudburv Dr. Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of building a shed. The following variances are requested: 1) A 4 foot variance for side lot Iine setback, (code requires Sft, applicant shows lft), section 1135.02 (4). 2) A 9 foot variance for rear yard setback, ( code requires lOft, applicant shows lft.), section 1135.02 (4). 3) A 20 square foot variance for exceeding allowable 2% of back yard, (code permits 100sqft, applicant shows 120sqft), section 1135.02 (1). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections; 1135.02 (4) and 1135.02 (1). Mr. Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. The owners still were not present, but concerned neighbors, Dan and Patricia Mazzella of 26927 Sudbury Dr. were present. Mr. Mazzella questioned if the board would grant Mr. Muskin's variances. Mr. 1Vfaloney indicated that there is an easement problem and that he would have to work it out with the engineering department and the one foot in the back is too close in the board members opinions. Mr. IVlazzella suggested that he heard Mr. Maloney say before that the maintenance of the thing is the biggest problem. The problem he has is there is a giant swing set in the back, now there is going to be a shed right next to that. Mr. Gareau suggested that the board has the option of hearing it and making a decision. There are neighbors here who are ready to testify with respect to it. They have received proper notice and the board could decide on this. Mr. Maloney indicated that this is too close to the property line and he could not approve it this way. Mr. Kremzar and Mr. Kelly agreed. Mr. Mazzella indicated that he had talked with Mr. Muskin about this and he had told him that it was going on the other side of the yard. He would have had no problem with it not being next to his yard. IV1r. Gareau indicated that in that the applicant was not here it is his burden to establish that he is entitled to a variance, he has failed to meet that burden by failing to present any evidence at all. Mr. Kremzar questioned what the easement was. Mr. Maloney indicated 5 foot drainage easement. J. Maloney motioned to grant Paul and Elaine Muskin of 26949 Sudbury Dr. their request for variance 1123.12. Which consists of a shed and that the following variances be granted: 1) A 4 foot variance for side lot line setback, (code requires Sft, applicant shows lft), section 1135.02 (4). - 2) A 9 foot variance for rear yard setback, ( code requires lOft, applicant shows lft.), section 1135.02 (4). 3) A 20 square foot variance for exceeding allowable 2% of back yard, (code permits 100sqft, applicant shows 120sqft), section 1135.02 (1). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections; 1135.02 (4) and 1135.02 (1). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar. Roll call on the motion: Maloney, no; Kremzar, no; Kelly, no. Motion failed to pass. Variarnce Denied 9/6/01. 7