03/07/1990 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t .^ ? .r BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MARCH 7, 1990 PAGE 3 6. R. Bhatt, 30785 Old Shore Dr; E. Boza, 6119 Timber Trail Dr; B. Shin, 30801 Old Shore Dr; J. Johnson, 6101 Timber Trail Dr; and D. Chao, 30817 Old Shore Dr. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 4 foot height variance for fence. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1135.02(h)1. Chairman Bugala called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was administered to Mr. Batt, Mr. Shin, Mr. Chao, Mr. and Mrs. Hamden, J. Groff, Mr. Sebring, Mr. Wang, and all others present. Mrs. Hamden explained that they were requesting the 4 foot height variance in order to match the height of the existing fence which traverses 4 sublots. She explained that this is needed to establish a permanent barrier between commercial businesses and the residential area. In response to Mr. Restifo°s questions, she advised that whenthey boughttheir. prup2rty they were not aware that a builder could build on the adjacent property right up to their lot line. Mr. Hamden stated that his 1ot backs up partially to idightfall Nite Club and there was a natural barrier until the new construction was started. They explained that they do not want several different types and heights of fencing in their rear yards. Mr. Gomersall stated that the 10 foot fence was installed because of the nosie from the night club and he believes that a 6 foot fence would do the same thing. Mr. Bugala advised that he could see the impact of the wind on the existing 10 foot fence now and does not believe it would be a stable structure. Law Director Gareau stated that there was no height restriction for a commercial fence and Planning Commission could require a developer to put up a higher fence, but if it is installed a few inches over on the resi- dential side of the property, it is limited to 6 feet. He questioned why, if commercial property owners could put up a 10 foot fence, it would not make sense to allow these residents to put up a matching fence. Members believe that a 6 foot fence would do the same job that a.10 foot fence would do. Mr. Wang, a neighbor, stated that he has lived there for 10 years and even with tY:e fence cars can be heard from the night club. He believes that these people do need the fence. Mr. Grace pointed out that the fence that is up now is on commercial property but their: fence would be a foot or so away and the two fences would not line up. The applicants believed that they would match up closely. It was clarified that there would be adjacent lots which would also back up to commercial property. Mr. Grace agrees that the fences should match, but the other members are concerned that the fence wotild not hold up. Mrs. Hamden stated that they were trying to keep their property values up and they would have to maintain the fence if it needed repair. Mr. Bhatt pointed out that an animal hospital was to be built behind his property and there is such a difference in grade that a 6 foot fence would not be effective. B. Grace moved to grant the request for a 4 foot height variance for a fence for property situated at 30785 Old Shore, 6119 Timber Trail, 30801 Old Shore Drive, 6101 Timber Trail and 10817 Old Shore, seconded by T. Restifo. Roll call on motion: Grace, yes. Restifo, Helon, Gomersall, and Bugala, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. The meeting was adjourned at 8;05 p.m. ' ?u ??''?. • %/?? B. Bugala, C a'rman D: Conway, Bui:lding er