8/5/2019 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

right-of-way. Mr. Aspery did not know the distance but he knew it was less than 50 feet. Mr. Tamimi explained that the paver underlayment is shown in the photos. Mr. Allain confirmed that there is too much shade under the bay window, Mr. Tamimi said that was correct. Mr. Allain asked why the pad is proposed to extend past the bay window and Mr. Tamimi said that was the area of the previous landscaping and pavers. Mr. Tamimi said he would like the 9 foot by 22 foot pad instead of a porch or other alternative. Mr. Mackey asked if a drawing with dimensions was required for a building permit to be issued. Mr. Russell said yes and the initial driveway permit application showed the proposed patio so it was sent to the Planning Department for zoning review. Mr. Aspery stated that no dimensioned plan was received with the BZBA application since it was not included in the packet. Mr. Gareau suggested the applicant consider tabling the proposal since it was incomplete. Mr. Tamimi said he asked Mr. Aspery to include the permit application paperwork with the BZBA paperwork since the dimensions would be the same as what was provided by the contractor. His yard has been torn up for two months and he would like to get it resolved. Mr. Mackey wanted to see the paperwork submitted by the contractor to see the full scope of work. Mr. Tamimi recently replaced the roof and driveway and wants to give the front of the home a facelift. Mr. Gareau suggested drawing up a complete site plan for the board to review the full scope of the project. Mr. Allain moved, seconded by Mr. Papotto, to table the request for 19-14222; Salwa Alhaja; 23741 Curtis Drive, motion passed 4-0. 19-14466; Mark Madden; 4530 Selhurst Road Representatives: Mark Madden, owner; Sharon Cross, 4541 Silverdale Road Proposal consists of a shed. Property is zoned B -One Family Residence. The following variance is requested: 1. A 20 sq. ft. variance for an accessory storage building; code permits 100 sq. ft., applicant shows 120 sq. ft., Section 1135.02(C)(2). Mr. Aspery stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 10 foot by 12 foot shed in the rear yard. Code permits a maximum accessory storage building size of 100 square feet and the proposed shed totals 120 square feet, therefore requiring a variance of 20 square feet. The property is recorded as 8,639 square feet; code allows a maximum building size of 100 square feet for lots 10,850 square feet and below. Mr. Madden thought his square footage was larger than reported by Mr. Aspery. Mr. Madden said his contractor suggested determining the square footage based on what will be stored in it, so he determined a 10 foot by 12 foot shed would be needed. Mr. Aspery said the square footage is what is shown on the County Auditor's website and he was sure structures were not removed from the lot square footage. Discrepancy between the measurements submitted and the GIS system were discussed. Mr. Madden said when applying for a fence permit previously, he measured from the pins by the sidewalk of his property and came up to 174 feet to the back of his property. Mr. Allain suggested he refer to the deed to determine his property lines. Ms. Cross said Mr. Madden got documentation from the city to measure their property lines and the lines were different than what it was before. Mr. Raig asked if the new fence line matched the other fence lines, Mr. Madden stated that it does. Ms. Cross was okay with the proposed shed. Mr. Madden requested to be tabled in order to get more clarification before a decision is made.