01/08/2024 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N extension exceeded the permitted height, aiming for eight or nine feet instead of the allowed six feet. The original fence had been installed with a permit in 2018. Mr. Kollar's reason for the carport variance request was to protect his vehicles from dama�ae caused by falling tree limbs and debris. Despite being initially told by the building department that such structures were not allowed, he later noticed similar structures in the area without permits. After further vehicle damage, he decided to proceed with constructing the carport, unaware that applying for a variance was an option. He emphasized his respect for the building department and his previous compliance with permit regulations for other projects on his property. Mr. Kollar requested the second variance for the fence height. citing the need to address issues with floodlights from neighboring properties. He explained that Ile had invested in arborvitae trees to mitigate the problem. but they would take time to grow to an effective heiu�ht. Additionally. lie believed that floodliahts were prohibited according to the Board of Appeals staff report. Ms. Seeley's report mentioned that inspectors visited Mr. Kollar's property but found no floodliohts in the neighboring properties, only regular decorative garage lights. She also noted the absence of records of Mr. Kollar's application for an accessory structure in 1019. Suggesting that carports might have been permitted then. However. she highlighted that carports were no lonuer alloNved and questioned why Mr. Kollar didn't apply for a permit before erecting the structure. She also clarified rel-Iulations regarding accessory structures and shed limitations. mentionin�a that carports are typically temporary and subject to complain -based enforcement. Mr. Upton's report highlighted that Mr. Kollar's request should be examined as a use variance. as it involves us1110 the property in a xvay not permitted by the code. specifically for installing a carport. He mentioned that while each case is unique. similar requests in the past Have not been favored by the board. He advised against considering the use variance favorably but left the decision to the board's discretion. Mr. O'Malley *s report outlined the differences between the area variance standard for the fence height extension and the more severe use variance standard for the carport. He emphasized that the use variance is stricter and requires demonstrating unnecessary hardship. unique property circumstances. and other criteria. He pointed out that the problem with the carport is self-created and cautioned against sanctioning violations of the law-. He advised the board to consider the application without punishing the applicant for falling to obtain a permit. Mr. Kollar rebutted by stating that in 2019. he attempted to apply for a permit but was informed that carports were not permitted. without mention of a variance option. He also contested the classification of the neighbor's lights as decorative. providing evidence of their brightness. Mr. O'Malley interjected, advising the board that it's not the building department's responsibility to provide legal counsel on variance rights. He emphasized that the issue at hand is whether to permit a nine -foot tall fence due to neighborhood lights. suggesting its an enforcement matter rather than a basis for a variance. Ms. Patton inquired about adding on to existing garage. Mr. Kollar replied that it was cost prohibitive due to the contractors explaining they would be required to tear down existing garage and rebuild a new two -car garage. Mr. Papotto asked what the difference was between a Z:Icarport and a garage. Mr. Upton referenced chapter 11 15 of the zoning code. which is the definitions