Laserfiche WebLink
replace an 80 -square -foot shed, which had become inadequate for seasonal furniture and yard <br />equipment. The new shed would be located closer to the garage, and the existing shed would be <br />removed. Letters of support from neighbors on both sides and across the street were included in <br />the proposal. <br />Mr. Kovach motioned to approve: 136-2024; Ethan Kollar; 5194 Dewey Rd.; seconded by Ms. <br />Patton. <br />The board discussed that the applicant had effectively addressed previous issues related to the <br />carport. Members expressed appreciation for the letters of support from neighbors, indicating <br />that the applicant had engaged with the community to gauge potential impacts. There was a <br />consensus in favor of the proposal, noting the importance of neighbor support to prevent future <br />issues. <br />Motion Passed: 4-0 <br />139-2024; Jeffrey Steed; 6234 Columbia Rd. <br />Representative: Jeff Steed; 6234 Columbia Rd. and Greg Kissinger on Columbia Rd. <br />The project involved a request for a variance to build a detached garage, seeking a 956 -square - <br />foot variance since the proposed area was 1,706 square feet, exceeding the permitted 750 square <br />feet. The garage was planned to be 25by 48 feet and 17.5 feet tall. The existing garage measured <br />506 square feet on a 3.28 -acre lot. <br />The applicant explained the need for the garage for storage of equipment, a classic car, and other <br />items currently kept outdoors. They highlighted that the property could accommodate the <br />structure and noted its distance from the house. The applicant expressed that the garage would <br />enhance the property's appearance. <br />Board members inquired about comments from the building department, which had none. There <br />were no additional questions from the board regarding neighbor communication, with only one <br />neighbor's input mentioned. <br />Mr. Kovach motioned to approve: 139-2024; Jeffrey Steed; 6234 Columbia Rd.; seconded by <br />Ms. Patton. <br />Board members expressed their support for the applicant's request for a variance for a detached <br />garage. One member noted that the applicant owned adjacent property, highlighting the need for <br />storage given the amount of equipment that could be housed in the garage. Concerns were raised <br />about potential commercial use, but the detailed explanation of intended use reassured members. <br />Overall, the size of the lot reinforced the necessity for an additional outbuilding to maintain the <br />property effectively. <br />Motion Passed: 4-0 <br />COMMERCIAL APPEALS AND REQUESTS <br />