6/1/2020 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

shed was a significant improvement but the variance for an accessory structure is permanent and could be replaced by a bigger building in the future. Mr. Wasylyshyn believed consolidating the lots would decrease the values of the properties. He does not plan on building anything else on the property, but bought the lot to gain a little more space. Ms. Patton asked if the vacant lot is buildable, Ms. Lieber said it is. The applicant does not want to consolidate due to the cost and his financial situation. Mr. Russell was unaware of a temporary structure that could be installed without requiring a variance. Ms. Lieber suggested putting a restriction in the motion to limit the size of the accessory structure to one that would not require a foundation. Mr. Rahm appreciated that the applicant is maintaining the lot but thought a restriction on a structure not requiring a foundation should be included. Mr. Mackey thought the variance wording should be updated. Ms. Patton was concerned about the long-term effect of granting a permanent variance for an accessory structure on the property. Mr. Papotto did not think consolidating the lots for such a small structure made sense, but thought the shed could be included on the lot with the home. Mr. Allain was also concerned about granting the variance. He acknowledged that economics are a factor for the applicant but did not believe a variance should be granted based on it. Mr. Gareau said the variance could be limited to allow the shed size as proposed. Ms. Lieber pointed out that all other zoning requirements would need to be met when the structure is built. Mr. Russell was concerned about enforcing the variance when ownership changes. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Ms. Patton, to approve the following variance for 20- 16419; Adam Wasylyshyn; PPN 232-27-004, as amended: 1. A variance for erecting an 8 -foot by 10 -foot resin shed on a gravel base with no foundation as submitted prior to construction of a dwelling; code does not allow, Section 1135.02. See also 1135.01,1135.02(C)(1). Motion passed 3-2, Ms. Patton and Mr. Allain voted no. 20-16429; David Sherman; 27904 Southern Avenue Representative: David Sherman, owner Proposal consists of an air conditioning unit in the side yard. Property is zoned B -One Family Residence. 1. A 2 ft. variance for side yard setback on a corner lot for a new air conditioning unit; code requires 25 ft. side yard setback, applicant shows 23 ft. side yard setback, Section 1135.06(C). Ms. Lieber stated that a new air conditioning unit must abide by the same setback as the dwelling. The unit proposed by the applicant will be installed in a required side yard, setback 23 feet, when 25 feet is required on a corner lot. Mr. Sherman said the unit would be four feet from the home and the unit would be approximately 23.7 feet from the sidewalk. The unit will be shielded by landscaping. He plans to build a deck in the backyard so the unit could not be put behind the house. Ms. Lieber did not think the neighbors would be impacted by the unit, especially since it will be shielded, and the request was minimal, Ms. Patton agreed. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Rahm, to approve the following variance for 20- 16429; David Sherman; 27904 Southern Avenue: