12/3/2018 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

front of the building to the average height between the eaves and ridge line for a gable, hip or gambrel roof. A 1 foot 6 inch variance is also required for the southwest corner of the proposed garage. A 10 foot rear building setback is required, whereas an 8 foot 6 inch setback is shown from the property line. The driveway serving the proposed garage is gravel, which will require a variance to remain. Code requires that driveways be constructed of concrete, asphalt or similar materials as approved by the Engineering Department. The last two items are appeals to a property maintenance notice of violation. Mr. Ulewicz said one of the garages in the back of his property was built in 1996 and the other was built before he bought the home. He wants to combine the existing garages and make them look like a barn. His home was converted from a dairy barn and the front driveway is the original driveway leading to the building, where cows would be taken into the barn. Due to the slope of the driveway, water runs towards the house when it rains. To combat the water flow, he keeps greenery growing in the driveway to help the water get absorbed as it flows down the driveway. He does not believe the driveway is "deteriorated" as noted in the violation notice. He thinks the water flow has decreased with the greenery. He has stored his firewood in its current location for 15 years and his neighbor does not have any issues with it. He understands the reason for the code requirement but it does not take neighbor agreements into account. He covers the wood with a brown tarp and it is 15 feet away from the neighbor's structures. The driveway going to the back of the property is gravel and he believed it was approved when it was built in 1996. Mr. Aspery stated that the Planning Department has no opinion on variances #I through 3, but they do object to variances #4 and #5. For variance #4, he suggested pervious surface materials to assist with the water issues. He added that since the garage is being renovated, the new code requirements must be met. He believed item #5 should be enforced. In response to item #6, Mr. Aspery suggested the applicant eliminate the shorter driveway and only use the driveway to the rear of the property. Mr. O'Malley reminded the members that the practical difficulty standards apply to variances 1 through 4. Under 1363.111.2, the standards for review for a notice of appeal are whether or not there is basis of fact or the citation was arbitrary or capricious. The scope of the board's review is whether or not the applicant has demonstrated that the citation was not well-founded. Mr. Allain asked if the citation would be reviewed as a de novo review, Mr. O'Malley said it would not be. Mr. O'Malley said if the appeal is granted, the citation would be set aside. Mr. Allain asked if neighbor agreements are taken into account for citations, Mr. O'Malley said no. Mr. Allain asked if the applicant could put pavers in place for the tire tracks in the driveway, Mr. Aspery said the applicant would need to talk to the Engineering Department. Mr. Allain asked if the existing structures would be taken down, Mr. Ulewicz said he would be building on top of the existing walls and combining them under one roof. Mr. Ulewicz said there is currently no foundation connecting the two structures, but he would install one. Mr. Allain asked if the 330 square foot request includes the space between the structures, Mr. Ulewicz said it does since it will be under one roof. One building is 18 feet by 24 feet and the other is 20 feet by 24 feet. The existing shed shown attached to garage #1 on one of the plans is to remain untouched by the project. Mr. Papotto asked if the violation notice refers to both driveways, Mr. Russell said it does if both gravel driveways are not maintained. The zoning variance is