07/10/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, 50%, code states maximum allowed is 200 square feet and they would like 216 square feet. Mrs. Campbell questioned what the neighbors would be willing to live with. To address the fence, it is a white vinyl fence very expensive and was put in place to compliment their yard, which it does. Mrs. Campbell's hobby is ceramics and she would like to be able to work on her ceramics in the shed to make sure it is stored in an area that would protect them from getting damaged. Mrs. Hewitt suggested the Campbell's moved into the house 9 months ago and she has lived there for 10 years, they should have purchased a lot that could accommodate that big of a shed. Mr. Hewitt indicated that the code allows 130 square feet for this lot and that code should be upheld. Mr. Nashar commented that Mr. O'Grady asked for compromise and the neighbors do not want to compromise. Mr. O'Grady did not agree with the statement that the neighbors would not want to compromise. Mr. Hewitt indicated that the neighbors are against the shed because it is oversized and it will be noisy. Mr. Kwak would love to have compromise and for the neighborhood to get along. Unfortunately that is not the case here, Mr. Campbell has been using the garage to do his hobby, it has been loud, and he did not complain. When Mr. Campbell started to place his fence W. Kwak tried to talk to him about the placement of the fence. Mr. Campbell assured Mr. Kwak the fence would be 4-inches in from his own property line and shook hands with him. Mr. Kwak came home from work to find that the fence was placed 1-inch onto his property. He tried to seek the help of the Building Department but was informed that he would have to hire a surveyor to determine lot boundaries. Mr. Kwak would have to pay a surveyor $350.00 to place pins so he compromised again by just letting the fence stay on his property. Mr. Kwak would like a good neighborhood, but_ has compromised enough. The law was put in place to help control and protect everyone. He would like to be friends with everyone in the neighborhoocl and have all the children get along. If the laws were folloviwed, it would help everyone get along. Mr. O'Malley indicated that 1135.02 d 1 of the code states, accessory buildings and structures not exceeding 2% of the rear yard but no larger than 200 square feet may be permitted in the rear yard of a residential lot: This section focuses on accessory buildings, the term shed is used and the focus of the provision is not on the use of the building but the lot coverage. The Building Department calculates the 2% lot coverage. There are many contentions being made and he would like the board to refer to his memo dated April 1, 2002. Mr. O'Malley's memo reviewed that the Courts clarify when discussing an area variance, wluch tfiis is; tfie pr(jper phrase is practical difficulty and in our code there is reference to both unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty. This is not a use variance it is an area variance and the standard to analyze a practical difficult is outlined by the Court in Duncan v. Middlefield. There are seven factors given to help the Board weigh each factor in rendering an opinion. The factors listed are 1). Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. 2). Whether or not the variance is substantial. 3). Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. 4). Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g. water, sewer, and garbage). 5). Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. 6). Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. 7). Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The Boards duty is to apply the code and grant variances from the code when necessary to allow for_ reasonable use of the property. The code provides a standard and the board can make exceptions based upon those standards, if the applicant has demonstrated the justification. The issue of electricity being placed on an accessory building is not an issue. The matter before the board is not whether or not the applicant can have a woodworking activity in his shed. The issue is whether the 2% rule would apply here or the applicant has demonstrated justification to vary from the standard. Mr. Hewitt reviewed why he does not believe the burden was not proven. W. Kremzar motioned to grant Tim and Bernadette Campbell of 29760 Westminster their request for variance (1123.12) and that the following variance be granted: