Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boathouse Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sandusky board tables disputed boathouse variance after neighbors raise shared-piling, access concerns
Summary
The board heard conflicting testimony over a proposed boathouse addition/replacement that would reduce side and front setbacks. Neighbors said shared steel pilings and a common cross beam would be affected; the board tabled the request to allow fuller membership and encourage neighbor dialogue.
The Sandusky board heard extended public comment Tuesday on a variance request to rebuild or replace a private boathouse that would reduce front and side setbacks. Staff said the project—presented as either an addition or complete replacement—would lower the front yard setback to 10 feet (from about 14 feet) and create very narrow side yards; staff recommended approval conditioned on obtaining all applicable permits.
The applicant, Robert Disauer, told the board his existing boathouse is deteriorated and "not built correctly," and said he wants to rebuild to current codes and to accommodate a wider boat. "I wanna build it correctly," he said, noting he has a 13½-foot boat and the existing boat well is about 11 feet wide.
Adjacent owner Jim Burke opposed the plan, saying the properties share steel pilings and a cross beam that ties multiple boathouses together. "The steel pilings that hold up my house are between us," Burke said, warning that cutting or removing shared members could leave his structure unsupported and eliminate space for maintenance.
Board members and staff questioned the technical implications of removing cross beams and replacing pilings. Neighbors, including Tracy Fox, told the board they learned of the application only by city notice and said the proposed rebuild would reduce the existing maintenance gap to about six inches, preventing routine repairs and access.
Board members and staff emphasized the limits of the board's role on private property disputes. One member urged neighbors to negotiate access agreements, and the law director reminded the board civil remedies exist for private easement disputes. Because several board members said a full vote was important for a matter that could set a precedent for other boathouses, a board member moved to table the item until the next meeting to allow more members to participate.
The board did not take a final vote on the variance and directed that neighbors pursue dialogue and that any rebuilding comply with applicable permits and boathouse regulations before construction begins.
The boathouse item is tabled pending a future meeting where a fuller board can hear the application.
