09/04/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I i r told he could finish everything outside; he was 90% complete with the work. He then showed photos to the board members. He indicated the only work left is the insulation and the drywall. He added that he had two inspections and both times they passed. Mr. Kremzar asked if the room the applicant finished is what he asked for. Mr. Legarth said yes. He said it was a room that he built on to an existing deck that was there for 25 years. Mr. Kremzar asked if there was a reason the applicant built there instead of in the back. Mr. Legarth said he built it there because there was foundation already there. Ms. Connelly said she lives next door to the Legarths. She has known them for 4 to 5 years and due to unfortunate circumstances, they are in this position. She said she doesn't know why the city would permit a building like this to be built so close to her house. It is 9 feet away and the code requires 15. She said prior to all this, they had discussed what Mr. Legarth had wanted to do last fall and Mr. Legarth asked what her thoughts are on it. She told him anything he wanted to do was fine as long as it was within code. She said this upset her very much so she called the city to find out what the code is for area between structures. That is when she found out there is a problem. Up to that time, she trusted her neighbor and the city implicitly. As this has progressed, it just didn't make sense to her that the city would approve this and that is what prompted her call. W. Yaeger said he is the neighbor on the other side. He said he believes his neighbors had a variance for the structure that was previously there. He said this structure is within the bounds of the original structure. He is present to support his neighbors and thinks the addition is very nice. Mr. Kremzar pointed out the addition is not on Mr. Yaeger's side. He asked if W. Yaeger would have a problem if it was on his side. W. Yaeger said he doesn't believe so if it was within the same footprint of the original structure. Mr. Maloney mentioned the board members received a letter from Joycelyn and Dale Harp, neighbors behind the Legarths. He read the letter into the record (see attached). Mr. Maloney then asked for comments from Mr. Rymarczyk. Mr. Rymarczyk said the application was for screening in a porch and it was given to the building inspector rather than the zoning inspector. The plans were looked at and approved without a site inspection being performed. It should have gone to the zoning inspector but it did not. Mr. Kremzar asked if the original permit was for a screened in porch only. Mr. Rymarczyk said that is correct. He said the application read a "screened in porch." He said when you look at the plans, the plans get in to more detail, showing a new roof going on and screening in. Mr. Legarth presented an electrical permit to the board. W. Kremzar said it has no bearing on this. Mr. Legarth said the building inspector told him, if he is putting in a screened in porch, he could call it a three-season room. He said that is when he changed his plan and put windows in instead of screens. W. O'Malley said he would focus the board's attention on the standards that exist for the consideration of the variance more so than on the popularity or lack of popularity of this addition, without undue consideration for the error or the absence of an error. The board is looking at practical difficulties associated with the addition to a non-conforming building, the special permit standards that are addressed in the code. The board might also draw on its experience and other examples of having a non-conforming building with a proposal to add to it, consistent with the pre-existing variances from the code, and the unique considerations that are associated with that. He said they need to consider how substantial the variances are, and whether or not they are consistent with the spirit and intent of the code or contrary to it. They are also to consider whether governmental services being delivered are a factor, and whether the variances would impair property values or property interests. Mr. Kremzar asked what happens if the board denies the variance. Mr. O'Malley said the city might then have an obligation to assess the ability to compel compliance with the code and the property owner may take the position that he was granted a permit and substantially completed the addition and therefore is entitled to retain it. It could be a legal confrontation between the city enforcing the code and the property owner's alleged right to maintain the structure as built. Mrs. Sergi asked Ms. Connelly if she had an issue with the deck that has been there for 25 years. Ms. Connelly replied she was not there when the deck was built. She said she has lived in her current home for 4 or 5 years. Mrs. Sergi asked again if she had an issue with the deck. Ms. Connelly said the deck is close to her home too. Mrs. Sergi pointed out the deck was a foot closer but they have moved the addition in. Ms. Connelly said the deck was an open structure and now it is closed in, which makes it a different matter. The addition is on her side so she would be affected and it would have a bearing on her property value. Mr. Kelly said the thing that bothers him is the original application misrepresents the proposal. It was not identified properly from the beginning. W. Konold mentioned that the inspector told the applicant to call it a three-season room and that was presented to the building department. Ms. Connelly said the inspector told