02/01/1995 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

! ? . + _t ~ • . ? 3. D. Juergens 24874 Randall Drive . Request for variance (1123.12). Request 17 foot rear yard variance to construct sun room. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.08(a). Also request special permit to add to non-conforming dwelling. Specialpermit required Ord. 90-125, Section 1165.02(b)(1). Chairnian Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was advziuistered to Mr. Kemp, contractor, and Mr. Juergens. Mr. Koberna noted that none of the neighbors were present. T. Koberna moved to grant the request of D. Juergens, 24874 Randall Drive for a 17 foot rear yard variance to construct a sun room. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.08(a). Also to grant a special permit to add to a non conforming dwelling. Special permit required Ord. 90-125, Section 1165.01(b)(1). The motion was seconded by W. Purper, and unauimously approved. Variance and special permit granted. 4. Matthew G. Suimna, 25191 Butternut Ridge Rd. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 3.5 foot variance for fence in front setback which is not 50% open. Also request location variance for pool which is located in the required front and side yard. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1135.02(fl1 and 1135.02(I). ChaimLan Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was admuustered to Mr. and Mrs. Suiniua, and neighbors, Mrs. Ellis, Mr. and Mrs. Kilbourn Mrs. Goerz, W. and Mrs. Milan. It was explained to the neighbors that the applicants wanted 3.5 foot height variance for a fence that was in the front setback and a variance because it was not 50% open as required by code. They also want a pool which will be partially in the front and side yards. Mr. Sumina explained that this would be a 6 foot stockade fence for privacy since his yard is _ practically unusable because the lot is right on Butternut Ridge Road and he has practically no back yard. Mr. Gomersall clarified that he could have a 6 foot fence on the back line and up to the front building line. One neighbor was concerned that this fence will hinder visibility since this is a dangerous intersection and that there have been several accidents. Building Commissioner Conway explained to the neighbors that a 6 foot fence was required with a pool. Mrs. Sumna stated that she did not even like for her children to play in the front because the yard was so exposed. They talked to an inspector who had stated that he did not believe that they would have a problem getting the variance. Neighbors stated their concerns about safety, appearance, and visibility. Mrs. Goerz is concerned about her property values and Mrs. Ellis is concerned about getting out of her drive. Mr. Gomersall believed that they should reach some kind of compromise, such as about 40 feet from the road, that would satisfy the fence requirement for a pool. Mr. Suuuna stated that there would be 70 feet for visibility and it is a dead end street. Mr. Koberna suggested that they move the shed in the back, reduce the pool to about 20 feet, and put in the back. W. Summa stated that it would not fit. Mr. Gomersall drew a plan of what he was suggesting. Mr. Sumina believed that the city was telling him he could not use lus own yard. Mrs. Summa would like the fence to come out about 10 feet and follow the line of the house and return back to where the neighbors fence is now. The back portion of the fence is legal. Mr. Gomersall had no problem with this configuration and explained it to the neighbors. The neighbor to the rear was concerned because she would see the fence from her window, but she was told that this portion of the fence was allowed by code. Mr. Conway clarified that the fence would be projected across the front building line to an intersection where the legal fence would be. J. Maloney moved to grant the request of Matthew G. Snmma, 25191 2