11/06/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

storage space. He will most likely fix up the small shed in the rear later and replace the roof. Further discussion over removing the small shed took place between the board members and applicant. Mr. Warnick assured the board that the new storage area is for storage only. J. Konold motions to grant Ralph Warnick of 26350 Butternut Ridge Road his request for variance (1123.12), which consists of an accessory storage building addition as amended. The following variances are granted: 1. A 160 square foot variance for exceeding magimum square footage allowed, (code permits 200 sq. ft., applicant shows 360 sq. ft.), section (1135.02 (d) (1)). 2. A 2 foot variance for ezceeding maximum height allowed, (code permits 12 ft., applicant shows 14 ft.), section 1135.02 (d) (2)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 (d) (1)) and (1135.02 (d) (2)). Note the addition & alteration is to the ezisting workshop, which is attached to the ezisting detached garage. The egisting shed is to be either torn down or renovated within 1-year timeframe. N. Sergi seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Variances Granted. 2). Donald Abshire: 3096 West 230t'' Street: WRD 2 Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new roof over existing deck. The following variance is requested: 1. A 3-foot variance for rear yard requirements (minimum depth), (code requires 50 ft., applicant shows 47 ft.). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.08 (A)). Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review their request. Mr. Abshire the owner and Mr. Robertson a neighbor each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Abshire indicated that he required a 3-foot variance for the gable roof he would like to place over his existing deck. There will be gutters placed on the new roof and tie into the existing downspouts. Mr. Robertson indicated that he lived right next door and for some reason, he was not notified of the meeting. His name is listed on the notice but the address is a none existing address. He would like to request the issue be tabled as he only saw the plans for the first time on Tuesday and needs more time to consider the request. Mr. Conway suggested as the request was not complicated and the neighbor is present the board could allow the gentleman an opportunity to review the drawings which show the roof being placed over the existing deck. Mr. Robertson questioned if once the roof is built could a future owner remove the deck, poor a slab and enclose the area. Mr. Conway indicated that the current owner if he wanted could remove the deck and build an addition within 3-feet of were the deck is now without requiring a variance. Mr. Robertson indicated that the deck is only 6-feet from his property line. He came to the meeting in good faith and was only notified Tuesday by Mr. Abshire through his wife of the meeting. Originally during the summer Mr. Abshire informed him he was hiring a contractor to look at the deck but that was the last he heard of anything. He finds it strange that he is the closest neighbor yet not notified. Mrs. Rote showed Mr. Robertson the records on file that were used for the notifications. Mr. Robertson commented that' he wanted time to research things and talk to Mr. Conway. Mrs. Sergi questioned if Mr. Robertson was upset because of the notice or was it because he has issues with what his neighbor wants to do. Mr. Robertson remarked that he had a problem with both, but mostly not knowing and how this was just slid in the way, it was. Mrs. Sergi again questioned if Mr. Robertson had a problem with what the applicant was requesting. Mr. Robertson answered somewhat "yes" I am asking for more time. Mr. Abshire indicated that he offered to not extend the roof out the 3-feet on the side of the deck, which faces Mr. Robertson's property. Mrs. Sergi questioned if that would be acceptable 2