Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 5, 1988 PAGE 5 <br />13. Springvale Country Club, 5073 Canterbury Road <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 1 foot height variance for portion <br />of fence and 3.5 foot height variance for portion of solid fence in front <br />setback (not 50% open). Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.02(h)1. <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. and Mrs. Scheeff, representing Springvale, and Mrs. Chapek <br />representing her father, Tir. Chovan who lives directly across from the proposed <br />fence, and is opposed to the variance. Mr. Scheeff explained that they had to <br />tear down one building when Pebblebrook Subdivison was built, and the trees <br />that were relocated to this area died. They would like to install the fence <br />to shield the maintenance shed, equipment, and the dumpster. Mrs. Chapek <br />stated that the fence would obscure her father's view (he is an invalid), <br />and the 6 foot fence will be located on nroperty that is 6 foot higher than <br />his property. She questioned why they cannot put the equipment elsewhere since <br />they have so much land and stated that she was told that they were going to <br />purchase even more equipment. Mr. Scheeff stated that he doubted they would <br />buy too much more equipment, but advised that they did have a problem with <br />vandalism and would like to protect what they have. C. Remmel moved to grant <br />the 1 foot heigtit variance for a portion of fence and a 3.5 foot height vari- <br />ance for that portion of solidfence in the front set back that is not 50% ?'- <br />open, seconded by J. Helon. Roll call on motion: Remr.iel and Helon, yes. <br />Bugala and Gomersall, no. 14otion failed to pass. Variance denied. Mr. <br />Gomersall stated he believed that a 5 foot fence would be sufficient in the <br />back and does not believe that this fence should be in the front setback. <br />Chairman Remmel advised that there is a possibility of the fence height <br />being raised to 6 foot under a proposed ordinance which would mean that they <br />could put the fence in the back. <br />The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p,m. <br /> <br />C. Remmel, Chairman <br />B. Oring, Clerk(,6f Commissions