Laserfiche WebLink
detached garage contributed to lot coverage. It was also noted the garage's impact on the smaller <br />yard. The board discussed drainage and water issues, with no other significant comments or <br />questions. <br />Mr. Rahm motioned to approve 92-2024; Ernest Szczepanski; 23960 Noreen Dr.; seconded by <br />Mr. Kovach. <br />Board discussion involved expressing appreciation to the applicant for answering each question <br />thoroughly, covering many concerns one might have. They valued the efforts to prevent water <br />from entering the basement. All in all, the board felt the applicant demonstrated their hardship <br />and noted the improvements to the area. <br />Motion passed: 5-0 <br />98-2024; Ryan McKrell; 23855 Beaumont Dr. <br />Representative: Ryan McKrell <br />This request concerned an animal shelter for a chicken coop, seeking a variance of two feet, three <br />inches above the permitted height of six feet. The applicant's shelter measured eight feet, three <br />inches. The applicant explained that they built the coop considering the environment and raised it <br />16-18 inched due to uneven ground, matching the house and ensuring ease of cleaning. The <br />height discrepancy was discovered during the final inspection. All other requirements were met <br />except for the height. The applicant confirmed a three-foot clearance from overhead utility lines <br />and that the coop did not impact easement access. <br />Mr. Kovach motioned to approve 98-2024; Ryan McKrell; 23855 Beaumont Dr.; seconded by <br />Mr. Rahm. <br />Board members discussed that the structure looked well-built it was far enough away from the <br />easement and cleared from utility lines. <br />Motion passed: 5-0 <br />100-2024; Terressa & Mike Baggs; 4500 Canterbury Rd. <br />Representatives: Mike and Terressa Baggs, John D'Amico and Sam D'Amico from the Great <br />Garage Company <br />The project was for a detached garage, requesting a five-foot variance from the ten -foot rear lot <br />line distance required by code, proposing five-foot distance instead. The applicant explained that <br />the existing garage was in disrepair and needed replacement in the same location to accomodate <br />two cars. This was the only logical place due to the lot's constraints. The contractor added that <br />typical garage placements allow for about 32 feet in front to maneuver vehicles, but this lot only <br />provided 48 feet total from the house to the rear property line. The building department confirmed <br />