Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AUGUST 3, 1988 PAGE 4 <br />2. Douglas Belko, 4260 Bentley Dr. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 8 foot setback variance on side <br />property line and 7 foot setback on rear property line for swimming pool <br />deck. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.02(1). Note: Building permit <br />issued for pool. <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. and Mrs. Belko, and neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. McNiven and <br />Mr. Gluvna. Mr. Belko stated that he received a permit for the pool, but did <br />not know he needed a permit for the deck; after he was informed that he needed <br />a variance and a permit he completed the deck since it was already started. <br />Mrs. McNiven stated that with the deck and the fence on top the.structure <br />is about 12 feet high. Mr. Belko advised that the lower level is 2 feet high: <br />with a 6 foot lattice fence and the higher level is 4 foot high with an 8 <br />foot high lattice fence. A fence around a swimming pool must be 6 feet highe <br />Mr. Gomersall believes that if the lattice work were lowered it would increase <br />the noise level for the neighbors. Chairman Remmel agreed. Mrs. Belko stated <br />that the fence around the pool is 6 foot, but they installed the lattice around <br />the higher.deck to give the neighbors more privacy. Mr. Gluvna agreed that <br />it did give him more pripacy._ Mr. McNiven also believes it would give them <br />more privacy. Mrs. McNiven questioned if they could.request that the-spot <br />light on the house be removed.since it shines into their bedrooms. The <br />Belkos agreed to remove the light. Building Commissioner Conway explained that <br />this structure is on the deck and should be considered as a wall or part of <br />the structure, not a fence, but since it is an accessory to a pool it must be <br />10 feet from the property line. C. Remmel moved to grant the 9 foot setback <br />variance on the side property line and a 7 foot variance on the rear property <br />line for the swimming pool deck with the notation that the lattice work on the <br />deck is part of the structure of that deck, seconded by R. Gomersall. Roll <br />call on motion: Remmel, Gomersall, Grace, and Helon, Yes. Bugala, no. Motion <br />carried. Variance granted. <br />3. Malcom Laning, 6245 Wild Oak Dr. <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Request 13.5 foot rear yard set,back variance <br />for patio roof. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.08(a). <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr. Lanning. The Board had no questions on this request. <br />Je Helon moved to grant the 13.5 foot rear yard set back for a patio roof for <br />Malcolm Laning, 6245 Wild Oak Dr., seconded by B. Grace, and unanimously <br />approved. Variance granted. <br />4. Michael Dunn, 4782 Martin Dr. <br />Request for variance (1I23.12). Request 32.5 foot set back variance to <br />construct addition to a non-conforming dwelling. Violation of Ord. 87-93, <br />Section 1135'.06(a). ' <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was <br />administered to Mr.- and Mrs. Dunn. Chairman Remmel observed this would be a <br />definite improvement to the house. R. Gomersall moved to grant the 32.5 foot <br />set back variance to construct an addition to a non-conforming dwelling for <br />Michael Dunn.at 4782 Martin Drive; seconded by J. Helon, and unanimously <br />ap_proved. Variance granted.