12/3/2018 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

requested for the longer driveway and variance #6 refers to the shorter driveway. Mr. Papotto asked if the shorter driveway goes somewhere, the applicant said his clients park there and he does not want to get rid of it. He said gravel can be seen when standing over the driveway and he could kill the weeds with a non -carcinogenic form of Roundup if he needs to. His office has flooded several times due to the slow rate of absorption without the grass growing in the driveway. Mr. Mackey asked if the storm drainage could be improved at the end of the driveway, Mr. Ulewicz said there is a French drain that runs to the back of the property and the Engineering Department previously suggested installing a trough to the front of the property. Mr. Ulewicz said #57 and #10 stone goes the length of the longer driveway. He wants to make the shed bigger in the future but believed he would have to build on the school property to do so. He has been communicating with school officials about potentially getting an agreement to build on their property but it is not planned at this time. Mr. Raig asked for clarification of the measurements shown on the plans. Mr. Ulewicz said the existing shed is 12 feet wide and he is not sure where his property line is exactly since he has not had the property surveyed. He is requesting the variance in case the property line is closer than he thinks it is. Mr. Raig asked if the shed would be included as part of the combined structures. Mr. Ulewicz said it is currently connected to the first garage and would be connected to the combined structure. Mr. Russell was told the shed would be removed during the proposed project and a lot consolidation would need to be submitted in order for a building to be built on another property. Mr. Ulewicz said part of the existing shed could be on the school's property so he removed it from the drawings he submitted. Mr. Papotto asked what the variances would be if the shed is to remain. Mr. Russell said that if the shed is connected to the garages, it would need to be included in the total garage square footage and the variances would need to be recalculated. Mr. Allain wanted to split the variances into two groups to be voted on, variances #1 through #4 and items #5 and #6, because of the standards used to review them, Mr. Raig, Mr. Papotto and Mr. Rahn agreed. Mr. Allain did not think that the numbers presented were clear enough to make an accurate decision on the case. The applicant is unsure where the property line is and the square footage did not take into account the shed that is to remain. Mr. Allain said a variance may not be needed if the line was further away than the applicant thought. He thought variances #1 through #3 should be tabled, variance #4 should be voted on, and items #5 and #6 should be voted on together. He believed variance #4 could be voted on since it is not based on dimensions. Mr. Papotto thought variances 1 through 4 should stay together in case the project does not move forward and items #5 and #6 should be worked out with the Building Department. Mr. Allain said that the photographic evidence and the fact that the code does not cover neighbor agreements led him to side with the Building Department's decision in citing the applicant. Mr. Mackey agreed that the Building Department has the purview over the matter. Mr. Allain appreciated the applicant's reasoning for letting grass grow in the driveway but there are other recourses permitted by the code. The proposal will be rescheduled for the January meeting. Mr. Allain moved, seconded by Mr. Papotto, to table the following variances for 18-12532; Timothy Ulewicz; 26775 Butternut Ridge Road until the January meeting: 1. A 330 sq. ft. variance for total area of garages; code permits 750 sq. ft., applicant shows 1,080 sq. ft.; Section 1135.02(B)(1)(a).