The Sandusky Boards & Commissions heard heated testimony about a requested variance to expand or replace a deteriorated boathouse, and members voted to table the request until a full board is present.

Staff told the panel the project could be either an addition or a complete replacement but would in either case require reduced front- and side-yard setbacks; the presentation noted the proposed front setback would be 10 feet (the existing boathouse sits about 14 feet from the front flat line) while the commercial recreation district standard is 30 feet. Staff advised that engineering asked for a downspout to direct stormwater to the rear bay, that the city’s flood-plain permit must be obtained, and that the structure would have to meet the city’s boathouse regulations.

Owner Robert Dissauer, who said his current boat well is 11 feet, described plans to widen the well for a 13.5-foot boat and to rebuild the boathouse to current code, saying he wanted to "build it, correctly." Neighbors, including adjacent owner Tim Burke, opposed the change on access and structural grounds. Burke said shared steel pilings and crossbeams tie several boathouses together and warned that cutting common supports or narrowing the work gap would prevent future maintenance: "If you go 6 inches for my house, I can never put a screw in the side of my house again." Other neighbors echoed concerns that replacing or tying into the common pilings could damage neighboring structures.

Board members and staff noted additional approvals could be required from outside agencies for work extending into the water; staff said the applicant had been told a letter of approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be necessary before building seaward aspects could be approved. Several members said the dispute involves shared private property issues and emphasized that the zoning code in this district can allow zero side-yard setbacks, meaning some conflicts would be civil matters among property owners.

Given the number of affected properties and the technical complications, a board member moved to table the request until a full board could vote. The motion carried during roll call with recorded 'yes' votes by William Siemens, Kevin Zier and Dan Delahunt. The board encouraged neighbors to attempt a private agreement before the variance returns for consideration.

The board’s decision was procedural: the application is to be tabled rather than approved or denied, and required permits and any Army Corps approvals still must be obtained if the applicant returns with a proposal.