Laserfiche WebLink
Citizen Innut <br />Michael Ploumen, applicant, stated that this spring he received a Code violation on his garage <br />relating to the concrete pad and the lean-to that was recently constructed. He stated that he <br />questioned it because when he moved in there was a metal stake in the woodland area and his <br />neighbor is an original homeowner and stated that was the property line, therefore he based his <br />decisions on that knowledge. He stated that he measured from the stake to the mailboxes and <br />believed that he was therefore not within the setback. He stated that he reached out to a land <br />surveying company that surveyed his lot for $800, and he was frustrated with those results as his <br />structures are now within that setback. He commented that there are gutters on the lean-to to <br />ensure there is not a water issue for his neighbor. He stated that his neighbor directly to the east <br />does not have an issue with the structure. He stated that he did not get a permit and does not have <br />an excuse for that. He stated that he had the funds and assistance with labor and went forward <br />with the project. He stated that he would be responsible for any fines or penalties associate with <br />that as he did overlook the permit. He commented that he is a reasonable and simple person, as is <br />his variance. He commented that this does not impact anyone else as the neighbor adjacent has <br />submitted a letter in support. He believed that this fits with the character of the neighborhood and <br />does not stick out at all. He stated that he has received many compliments, and the structure serves <br />a purpose. He stated that if his neighbor wanted to put up a fence or install a fence, he would be <br />willing to make alterations or take the lean-to down, as his relationship with his neighbor is more <br />important than the structure. <br />Commissioner Anderson asked if the boat would still fit if the concrete was cut by 1.5 feet and the <br />posts moved in. <br />Mr. Ploumen replied that he was unsure as that would be a very tight fit. He stated that he recently <br />bought a trailer dolly to maneuver the boat into the structure as he cannot back it up in there with <br />his truck. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if the setback from the property line is to the base of the structure <br />or furthest extension of the structure. <br />Planning Manager Larson commented that setback is generally measured to the wall of the <br />structure with overhangs generally allowed. He stated that Building Code setbacks are to the <br />closest point, not necessarily the wall, therefore the measurements for the slab, posts, and overhang <br />would be included in the variance if approved. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy commented that this looks like a nice structure. He stated that if the posts <br />were moved onto the edge of the slab, the setback to the wall would be 3 feet eight inches and <br />would be a smaller variance. He asked if that would be a possibility. <br />Mr. Ploumen replied that he is unsure, but could try to work with that if that is the decision of the <br />Commission, but noted that would also make things more difficult in terms of space. <br />Planning Commission/ July 25, 2024 <br />Page 12 of 20 <br />