09/02/1987 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 PAGE 7 requirements for the side yard set back, seconded by J. Helon, and unanimously approved. Mr. Balfe advised the Building Commissioner that the out building on the rear of the uropert_y had probably previously been a play house and they were not removing that, only the shed shown on the plans. 16. Bradley Priest, 6097 Stafford Dr. Request for variance (1133.13). Request 7 foot rear yard variance for natio enclosure. Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1163.01. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr, and Mrs. Priest, Mrs. Wollman, neighbor, and Mr. Sika, the contractor who explained that.the patio enclosure was already started by the subcontractor before he was told that a variance was required before a building permit could be issued. Pirs. Wollman who lives to the rear has no problem with the request. Chairman Remmel advised the contractor that he could be made to tear down the structure.since it is illegal. Building Commissioner Conway staYPd that the contractor must verif_y to a building inspector that there are footers under the patio, and further advised the Board that the contractor's file will be noted that this had occurred and . this information would be kept for a year.- B. Gra.ce moved to approve the 7 foot rear yard variance for a patio enclosure with the stipulation that the Building Department verify a 36 inch fbundation footer under the existir?g concrete slab and all construction meets the specifications of the Building Department code, secondedby C. Remmel, and unanimously approved. Variance granted. ? 17. Kenneth Schroder, 23514 Stoneybrook Dr. (Heard earlier in meeting) 18. Laura Rychlik, 27900 North Park Request for variance (1133.13). Request 14 foot variance for length of privacy screen and location variance (not 5 feet from property l.ine). Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section ?151.04-G, Please note: permit issued for 5 foot fence. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Damm, a neighbor, and Mr. Rychlik who submitted a letter from neighbor stating they had no objection to the fence. Mr. Rychlik stated that he had received a permit for a 5 foot fence,and he was told by his engineer that a 6 foot fence was approved verbally. Mr. Remmel stated that he is sympathetic with the request bacause of the dogs next door. This is a privacy screen but cannot be 5 feet off the property line because of the drive. Mr. Doehring, the owner, advised that the Rychlik drive is right on his property line. Mr. Rychlik stated that he had property surveyed and at the point where the fence is, the driveway is off the property line, and the fence is on his property. C. Remmel moved to grant the 14 foot variance for the length of the privacy screen and a location variance, seconded by B. Grace. Ro1Z call on motion: Remmel, Grace, Gomersall, and Helon, yes. Mr. Bugala, no. Variance granted. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. C. Remmel, Chairman B. Oring, C of Commissions