05/02/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,Al J. Konold motioned to grant Maureen Loeser of 4673 Williamstown Dr. her request for variance (1123.12), which consists of installing a fence inside setback and that the follouring variances be granted; 1. A 16 £oot variance for side yard setback on a carner lot (code requires 25 ft., applicant shows 9 ft.), section (1135.02 (fl(1)). 2. A 42 inch height variance for erecting a fence higher than 30 inches (code pernuts 30", applicant shows 72"), section (1135.02 (fl(1)). 3. A variance for a fence in side yard setback wluch is under 500/o open (code requires 50% open, applicant shows under 50%), section (1135.02 (fl(1)). This is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (f)(1)). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. 2. Timothy Campbell; 29760 Westminster Dr •(WRD 31 Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists ofbuilding a shed. The following variances are requested: 1. A 250 square foot variance for a shed bigger than ordinance allows (code pernuts 200 sq. ft., applicant shows 450 sq. ft.), section (1135.02 (d)(1)). 2. A 320 square foot variance for a shed larger than 2% of rear yard area (code permits 130 sq. ft., applicant shows 450 sq. ft.), section (1135.02 (d)(1)). Note: Existing shed to be removed. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (d)(1)). Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review their request. Mr. & Mrs. Campbell, Mr. & Mrs. Hewitt, Mrs. Kwak, and Councilman, Nashar, eacn ca,me forward to be swom in and review the request. Mr. Campbell indicated that the existing shed will be removed and he would like to replace it with a 15' x 30' shed. His hobby is woodworking and he would like to have the shed for storage as well as a working area'for his hobby. The height of the shed will be under 12 feet, it will be 11-feet 6-inches at the peek of the roof. Mr. Maloney questioned were the new shed would be placed as the plans showed a different azea, then indicated. Mr. Campbell commented that there were concerns from neighbors regarriing the location so they decided to place the new shed in the same location as the old shed which is on the west side of the lot: Mr. Kremzar questioned were the entrance to the shed would be placed. Mr. Campbell commented that the entrance would be on the ea.st side of the shed with a man doot and one set of French doors. Both doors will face into the yard. Mr. Hewitt cammented that a, letter was submitted to the board objecting to the proposed shed. The letters Mr. Hewitt read altowed contained 24 homeowners signatures. The letters had the following comments: Will be unsightly, have a negative impact on adjacent properry values and will not be shielded from view. The size of the shed is that of a two ca.r garage and the owner suggested it would be hEated for year around use. The sound from a woodworking shop will be disrupting to the entire neighborhood. Nei,ghbors are concerned that the building size implies a commercial building not a shed. W. Hewitt is also concerned about water runoff of the shed as well as the shed blocking the sunrays required for his vegetable gardea to survive. He voiced that he does not want to see this shed in the back of his home. Mr. Hewitt respectfully requested that the variances be denied. Mr. Konold questioned how long the current shed was in place. Mr. Campbell indicated that the shed was on the property when they purchased it a year ago. They store all their lawn equipment and woodworking tools in the shed. Mrs. Hewitt is against the proposed shed as well as the existing sheds that are around her lot now. Currently when she looks out her windows, all she sees is walls from sheds. Mrs. Hewitt does not want to lose the vegetable garden to a shed. Mrs. Kwak indicated that her English is limited however she is against the proposed shed. Mr. Konold 1)