Laserfiche WebLink
indicated that was correct. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that he respectfully disagreed with Mr. <br />O'Malley's ruling. Only the additional structure being added requires the variance not the entire <br />home. Mr. O'Malley agreed. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the write-up is based on 1165.02 b 2. At <br />this point in the meeting there was a long discussion as to the definitions of the code and which codes <br />govern the request. Mr. O'Malley questioned if the issue was already voted on. The clerk indicated <br />that the variance was denied. Mr. Maloney indicated that the board believed that the law department <br />was saying that a special permit could not be granted unless the addition conformed to today's codes. <br />Therefore, it was denied. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the definition between building <br />and dwelling. Mr. Kelly indicated that the board was confused and the issue should be re-addressed <br />at the next meeting once the issues are made clear. Mr. Molls believed that what he heard stated was <br />a non-conforming building could not be added too according to the law department. Mr. Rymarczyk <br />indicated that the board could grant a special permit to add to a non-conforming building as well as <br />grant the required variance. (Note: Mr. Molls became argumentative with the board, law department <br />and building department at this point in the meeting) Mr. O'Malley believed that there would be a <br />need for a special permit to add to a non-conforming building as well as the side yard setback. <br />However, the request for a special permit was not listed in the notice. The clerk indicated that the <br />Building departrnents write-up did include a special permit request, but there was a typographical <br />error by her office and that is why it is not listed on the legal notice. <br />T. Kelley motioned to reconsider the motion for Bernie Romano of 3896 Walter Road his request for <br />variance (1123.12), which consists of an addition and table the request until meeting next. When the <br />board receives a ruling from the Building Commissioner on the way, it is written. The motion was <br />seconded by J. Maloney and unanimously approved: Request 'I'abled. <br />5. Phil Mertz4537 Gladland; (Wflti)-4) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of erecting a shed. <br />The following variances are requested: <br />1. A 5 foot variance for a shed too close to rear property Iine (code requires 10 ft., applicant shows 5 <br />ft.), section (1135.02 (4)(4)). <br />2. A 120 square foot variance for shed larger than code permits (code permits 200 square feet, <br />applicant shows 320 square feet), section (1135.02 (d)(1)). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 (d)(4)), and (1135.02 (d)(1)). <br />Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Mertz came <br />forward to be sworn in and review his request. Mr. Mertz indicated that he wished to improve the <br />appearance of his lot. Cunently there are two sheds on the lot, which are in poor condition. He <br />would like to have a shed equal to the size of the two sheds combined so he can store his belongings. <br />Mr. Kremzar questioned if the overall size of the shed would be smaller than the two existing sheds. <br />Mr. Mertz indicated that it would be smaller. Mr. Mertz indicated that he has a very big lot. Mr. <br />Maloney believed that the shed exceeded the 2% lot coverage. Mr. Kelly indicated that the applicants <br />yard is 100-feet wide by 170 feet deep. The shed does not exceed the 2% lot coverage; it exceeds the <br />200 square foot maximum allowed. Mr. Maloney commented that as the lot size is so large the 10- <br />foot setback requirement is to be followed. Mr. Mertz indicated that he would place the shed in the <br />required setback of 10-feet. Mr. Kelly voiced that he was against the size of the shed. Mr. Mertz <br />reiterated that the two structures combined are larger than what he is requesting. He is trying to <br />improve his property by putting up a new structure, which looks better. He needs to place his yard <br />tools, snow mobile and other items in the shed. Mr. Kremzar voiced that the board was against the <br />size of the shed. Mr. Kelly commented that the two existing structures are an eye sore but you are <br />still asking for a large size. Mr. Maloney questioned if the applicant could live with a smaller size <br />shed, or would he prefer to be tabled until meeting next. Mr. Mertz would rather table his request <br />until next meeting. <br />6