Laserfiche WebLink
<br />shed would be 6'/z feet from the rear yard line. The board suggested that an 8' x 12' shed <br />would allow more clearance and only decreases the floor area by 4-square feet. The <br />_ applicant voiced that he needed the room to store his lawn equipment and tools. The <br />applicant indicated that there are two drains in the swell and he has never seen a problem, <br />even after a heavy rain it is only damp. Mr. O'Malley advised the board to take the <br />Engineers memo into consideration as well as existing conditions. The board asked if the <br />applicant would consider an 8' x 12' shed. The applicant did not feel an 8' x 12' shed was <br />large enough and was not sure if Home Depot would allow him to change his order. <br />W. Kremzar moved to grant James Carlin of 3955 Lydgate Drive his request for <br />variance (1123.12), which consists of erecting a shed and that the following variance is <br />granted as amended; 1). A 3 foot 6 inch variance for a shed too close to rear property <br />line, (code requires 10', applicant shows 6.6'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 <br />section (1135.02 (D 4)). J. Maloney seconded the motion which was unanimously <br />denied. Variance Denied <br />Mr. Carlin asked the board if they would allow an 8' x 12' foot shed in the same place after <br />the motion was denied. The Assistant Law Director advised that the board would have to <br />motion to reconsider the variance and if that passed the board could redbait the amendment <br />to the request. <br />J. Maloney moved to reconsider the motion for James Carlin of 3955 Lydgate Drive. <br />W. Kremzar seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. <br />Mr. Maloney asked if the applicants were agreeable to install an 8'x12' shed and require <br />only a 1 foot 6 inch rear yard variance. The applicant agreed to install a smaller shed. Mr. <br />O'Malley advised the board to not focus on the size or shape of the shed but rather the <br />distance the shed would be placed from the rear yard line. <br />W. Kremzar moved to grant James Carlin of 3955 Lydgate Drive his request for <br />variance (1123.12), which consists of erecting a shed and that the following variance is <br />granted as amended; 1). A 1 foot 6 inch variance for a shed too close to rear property <br />line, (code requires 10', applicant shows 8.6'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 <br />section (1135.02 (D 4)). N. Sergi seconded the motion, which was unanimously <br />approved. <br />4. Scott Manlev; 5257 Dover Center Road: (WRD 4) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a patio cover. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1. A 6 foot variance for an accessory structure too close to rear property line, (code requires <br />10', applicant shows 4'). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (D 4)). <br />Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Manley <br />the owner came forward to be sworn in and review the request. The applicant stated that he <br />did not know that covering the existing patio required a permit. He apologized for not <br />applying for a permit to begin with and once it was brought to his attention that he needed a <br />permit he stopped work and applied for a permit. The cover will be a smoked color <br />polycarbonate roofing which will allow light to filter through. He is not extending the deck <br />he is just covering it. <br />4