5/3/2021 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Allain asked what factors were considered when determining the guardrail was a structure. Mr. Grusenmeyer said it was determined not to be a fence, but meets the definition of a structure in the zoning code as a permanent structure attached to the land. Mr. Grusenmeyer explained that it does not count as a permitted accessory structure and being filled in further impedes the flow of water. Mr. Allain asked if it could be considered a retaining wall and if the guardrail would be a permitted material. Mr. Grusenmeyer said that a retaining wall would be considered a structure and referred to the Engineering Department to ensure it meets their requirements. He added that guardrails are meant to be installed above grade and not in contact with the earth. Mr. Allain asked how much the planter affects the natural flow of water on the level ground. Mr. DiFranco explained that if the natural pattern of the water flow runs towards the planter, then the water would puddle because it could not get through the guardrail. If the planter was not there, the water would not be able to build up that high. Mr. Gareau did not think the applicants could not request a reconsideration if the variances are denied but they could appeal the decision through the court system. Ms. Patton thought the applicants are trying to improve their property but thought more could be done to resolve the ongoing water issues. It is difficult to say yes to the material type as well. Mr. Mackey agreed and questioned if the raised bed helped or hindered the flow of water. He believed that the property owner should seek proper approval and permits for grade changes. Mr. Papotto agreed and thought the property owners have made a lot of effort to improve the drainage but appreciated the clarifications provided by the Building and Engineering Departments. Mr. Allain believed the case is supported by the city. He deferred to the evidence city by the engineer showing the hindrance of stormwater. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variances for 21- 18915; Steve & Lorraine Hribar; 6017 Stearns Road: 1. A variance for an accessory structure that is not permitted in the Zoning Code; code does not permit guard rails, Section 1135.02(C)(4). 2. A variance for a freestanding accessory structure less than 5 feet from the side property line; code requires 5 feet, applicant shows less, Section 1135.02(C)(5). Motion denied 0-4. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to affirm the determination of the Building Commissioner for 21-18915; Steve & Lorraine Hribar; 6017 Stearns Road: 3. An appeal from the determination of the Building Commissioner that the accessory structure is located in a manner that hinders the free flow of stormwater, Section 1135.02(C)(6). Motion affirmed 4-0. 21-18919; Robert & Mary Michelle Duns; 4306 Danberry Drive Representatives: Robert & Mary Michelle Duns, owners Proposal consists of a home addition. Property is zoned C -One Family Residence. 1. A 2 ft. variance for rear yard setback of a dwelling; code requires 50 ft., applicant shows 48 ft., Section 1135.06(D).