05/05/1994 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

which would be adjacent to the front setback of the abutting house, seconded by W. Purper, and unaniinously approved. Variances granted. 12. Dr. Rabi Ridha/Dr. Wafa A1 Dhahir, 25281 Fawn Dr. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 48 foot variance to have 6 foot fence in side yard of corner lot which would be adjacent to the front setback ofthe adjoining property. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 113 5. 02( fl. Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admiuistered to Dr. Ridha, and neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Ross, Mr. and Mrs. Rudoff, Mrs. Grecol, Mr. and Mrs. Rudok and Mr. and Mrs. Wimmer. Mr. Gomersall stated that this is different from the last case in that the fence would be next to the front yard of the house next door. The neighbors are concerned about the safety since a driver could not see children if they ran into the street from behind the fence. They do have a problem with speeders who often do not stop at the stop sign. Mr. Gomersall stated that if everyone put up a 6 foot fence practically to the sidewalk, the city would look like an armed camp. Dr. Ridha responded that he had problems with people throwing eggs at the side of the garage and punching holes in his tires. The neighbors complained that his present fence looked like banacks and had not been kept up. One neighbor stated that she had been told that there could only be a 30 inch fence in the front setback and even though the address was on Fawn it was the front yard on Chase. Dr. Rabbi stated that the neighbor's fence was on his property. Mrs. Ross responded that they have removed their fence from his property and that fence was there when they bought the properiy. They have now applied for a building permit for a new fence. She also maintained that his fence was not structurally sound. Mr. Gomersall read a memo from the property maintenance inspector which stated, in part, "....because of poor workmanship and shoddy construction techniques. I would recommend that as a condition of receiving any sort of a variance, the resident be required to make corrections on the south fence, a1so." He had also pointed out that the request for a 6 foot fence in the in the fifly foot setback on a corner lot would cause "a visual obstruction of the right of way" and would be a violation of Section 521.13. Building Commissioner Conway advised that there was a question of whether this board could even grant a variance, because this is not just a violation of the zoning codes, but is a violation ofthe traffic code. The members agreed that this would be a safetyhazard and that the request should be denied. R. Gomersall moved to grant a variance to Dr:> Rabi Ridha, 25281 Fawn Dr. for a 48 foot variance to have a 6 foot fence in the side yard of a corner lot which would be adjacent to the front setback of the adjoining property, seconded by J. Maloney. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Maloney, Kobema and Puxper, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. 13. Troy A. Keith, 4822 Columbia Rd. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 3 foot side yard variance and 9 foot variance for distance between dwellings to construct two story addition. Violations of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.07(a) Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admivistered to Mr. and Mrs. Keith, and Mr. and Mrs. Hart and their son who are next door neighbors. Since the Harts knew nothing about the addition, it was explained that they want to add to the rear and also onto the second story over the flat roof. Building Commissioner Conway explained that there was 7