5/3/2021 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicant proposes to install a swimming pool that is three feet off the rear lot line. Code requires 10 feet, so a 7 -foot variance is requested. Ms. Rumes said they bought the property with two easements and they would like to have a safe place for their kids to play while they are home in the summer. The pool would need to be at the rear of the lot where it does not back up to any residential property. Mr. Rumes added that there is an existing privacy fence that runs along the back of the lot. Ms. Lieber thought the pool placement would be difficult given the easements on the property but she did not want any variances granted to affect proper stormwater drainage. Mr. Turvey did not have an issue with the pool. There is a swale that runs through his backyard, through the Rumes' property and into a retention basin. He thinks there is something impeding the flow of water because there is standing water on his property since their house was built. Ms. Rumes disagreed with Mr. Turvey and thought the drainage was properly graded and the stone was suggested by the city inspector. She has not had any issues with standing water on their property and believes it is an issue across the area that should not prevent them from having a pool. Mr. Gareau said the water issue can be considered when reviewing the proposal. Mr. Papotto suggested adding wording to the motion that approval is subject to the conditions of the City Engineer as required by the engineering codes. Mr. Papotto thought the engineer should review the property prior to a pool permit being issued. Mr. Mackey agreed and thought the city officials recently approved the plans for the new home. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variance for 21- 18969; Steven & Cassandra Rumes; 6645 Chadbourne Drive subject to any conditions of the City Engineer as required by the codified ordinances: 1. A 7 ft. variance for rear yard setback of a pool; code requires pools to be set back not less than 10 ft. from the rear lot line, applicant shows 3 ft., Section 1135.02(I). Motion passed 4-0. 21-18974; Fadi Maalouf & Silivia Youssef-, 23955 Maple Ridge Road Representatives: Fadi Maalouf & Silivia Youssef, owners; Jessica Kim, friend of the family Proposal consists of a gazebo. Property is zoned C -One Family Residence. 1. A 16.48% variance for excessive rear yard lot coverage; code permits up to 20% (480 sq. ft. based on rear yard area of 2,400 sq. ft.), applicant shows 36.48% (876 sq. ft.), Section 1135.05(B)(2). The applicant proposes to install a new gazebo. While a permitted use, the additional area of the accessory structure results in excessive rear yard lot coverage. Code allows 20% of rear yards to be covered by accessory structures and uses; the gazebo addition results in 36.48% lot coverage. Ms. Kim said the applicants would like the gazebo to gather safely with their family outdoors while being protected from the elements. It would be next to the garage and would not exceed the height of the house. The gazebo would be purchased from Costco. Ms. Lieber added that the lot is a nonconforming size and the rear yard is limited because of the location of the detached garage. Mr. Gareau asked what the structure would be built on, Mr. Maalouf said it would be installed on new concrete. Discussion regarding the amount of concrete to be used, Ms. Kim explained that the Mr. Maalouf would use concrete for the posts, not a full 12 by 16 -foot pad. Mr. Gareau suggested that the applicants discuss the footer requirements with the Building