neighborhood and are an asset.
Diane Dinken of 1701 Carlton Street spoke in opposition to this request and stated that
they are right in the back yard and they have more than twenty-eight (28) feet from the
garage door to the shared property line. She explained that the Applicant came to the
house to discuss this variance request, and they are aware that in the neighborhood
there are these types of RV sheds. They expected that they would get a permit and
follow the zoning regulations, which requires a ten (10) foot setback. After time went by,
they just saw a structure appear in the backyard on a Saturday morning. Then time
passes and they hear noise outside and they see that they installed a thirty (30) foot by
twelve (12) foot shed close to the property line. They called the Applicant, and they
said that they are just doing what they spoke to them about. Before they could see the
sky, sun and sunsets, but now they just see a brown shed with a red roof. She stated
that she’s sorry that everyone else is okay with it, but it will become a huge problem
when they try to sell the house with an eyesore like that so close to the property line
and it was put up illegally without a building permit. She doesn’t see a hardship at all
when they have space on their property, and he could move it.
Mr. Riesen spoke in rebuttal and stated that he went and spoke with them about
everything that they were going to do and even showed them the same dimensions and
location on where the structure was going to be. He stated that he even told them that
they structure was going to be thirty (30) feet long and twelve (12) feet high and that he
offered to put up any type of material to block the view of this structure and they agreed
to that. Mr. Riesen stated that when it was installed four (4) months later they came
over the next day and was furious, but then the next day she came back and told him
she was not going to turn him in and to go ahead and get the plants.
Chairman Jim Hattaway advised the Applicant to keep his comments toward the
possibility of getting a variance, not the back and forth with the neighbor.
The Applicant explained that he spent $2,200 to appease her and now she has a
problem with it. He also added that if he got the permit and put it at ten (10) feet, it
wouldn’t look any different and even if he removed the structure, he could park a twelve
(12) foot tall RV there and then she can stare at that.
Chairman Hattaway asked the Applicant if he has the ability to move it to the ten (10)
foot required setback and Mr. Riesen responded yes, but he would lose the garage
portion and it would be a lot of money to take it down.
Chairman Hattaway stated that the argument that it’s going to be a lot of money to take
it down isn’t persuasive because he didn’t comply with the law and that’s only his fault
and they will set a precedence if they accept that as an argument because anybody
can say something like that. The Applicant replied that it’s not about the money, but it
will be a big expense having to tear it down, but if anything, he can move it eight (8)
feet, but it will not look any different. Also, she can let the plants grow that he spent so
much money on.
In Board discussion, Chairman Hattaway stated that there’s a duty to the people who
comply with the law, not when someone says I don’t want to spend a lot of money on
following the law. Austin Beeghly added that they have a property owner against this,
