1/7/2019 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

than 50% of an increase in the height of the structure and that the applicant would still be permitted to have a shed after the proposed structure was approved. Mr. Mackey thought other homes in the neighborhood had similar sized structures and did not see the size negatively impacting the neighborhood. Mr. Mackey believed the ground water run off to the neighbors' properties would increase if additional concrete is installed. He did not have a concern with approving the variances since the applicant could work with the Engineering Department to address the water issues within the project. Mr. Allain suggested separating the variances and Mr. Rahm thought that the first and second variances should be grouped together. In regards to the fourth variance, Mr. Papotto did not have an issue keeping the gravel driveway since the driveway is very long and would be very expensive to install. He did not think there was anywhere for the water to go on the property so permeable pavers would not improve the situation. In regards to the third variance, Mr. Papotto appreciated that the location of the additional space on the rear of the structure was moved but there should be more evidence proving where the property lines are located. Mr. Allain was concerned that a future owner would discover the structure was encroaching on the neighbor's property and they would have to remove the structure. He thought once the structure was built, the flow of water would change and he did not think the applicant did his due diligence to show all options were considered to address the drainage issues. In response to the size of the buildings, Mr. Allain thought the neighborhood would look alright with the proposed structure but the size was not substantiated by the applicant. Mr. Raig admitted there is a water issue and more concrete would increase the water issues but the water can be handled through the Engineering Department. He thought the driveway near the road should be a hard surface. Mr. Raig said even with the gravel, the driveway is under water. Mr. Allain did not think changing to concrete would affect the water issues and it would look out of place since the other drives are hard surfaces. Mr. Mackey thought the aesthetics of the driveway should be considered since it is visible from the road. Mr. Papotto believed that leaving the driveway the way it is would not resolve the water issue. Mr. Allain moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variances for 18- 12532; Timothy Ulewicz; 26775 Butternut Ridge Road: 1. A 630 sq. ft. variance for area of private garage; code permits 750 sq. ft., applicant shows 1,380 sq. ft.; Section 1135.02(B)(1)(a). 2. An 8 ft. 6 in. variance for detached garage height; code permits 15 ft., applicant shows 24 ft. 6 in.; Section 1135.02(B)(1)(b). Note: Building height is determined from the average elevation of the finished grade at the front of the building to the average height between the eaves and ridge line for a gable, hip or gambrel roof. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Allain moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variance for 18- 12532; Timothy Ulewicz; 26775 Butternut Ridge Road: 3. A 3 ft. variance for rear building setback; code requires 10 ft. setback for private garages, applicant shows 7 ft.; Section 1135.02(B)(1)(c). Motion passed 3-2, Mr. Allain and Mr. Papotto voted no. Mr. Allain moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variance for 18- 12532; Timothy Ulewicz; 26775 Butternut Ridge Road: