11/12/1997 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. r. . .. + M talked a day before he received the notice. He went to one of the other builders she had spoken with, and he advised that this would not be a good investment. He stated that he had offered to buy the property from Miss Gasper if it were a problem to her. He took exception to the remarks about his ulterior motives. Mr. Clark was present to support Mr. Stotz's position since the extent of the variauces are unreasonable. Councilman Nashar commented that he was not in favor of the lot split due to the non-conforming size of the lot. Miss Gasper stated that she never told Mr. Stotz which builders she went to, and no builder ever told her that, the other builders would have marketed the property, before they purchased the land. She maintained that the previous owner had offered this land to Mr. Stotz when he was building his home and Mr. Stotz did not want it, he just did not want anyone else to have it and that he had never offered to buy it from her. Mr. Stotz responded that the previous owner never offered him the land. M.T. Gareau stated that there were reasons that these restrictions were adopted, at one time a builder came in with several irregularly shaped parcels of land, and it was decided that that lots should not be subdivided unless they are 135 feet deep, the reason being if a subdivision were approved with less than that, it would be necessary to grant a variance for the houses. Again, they are not dealing with variances for the house, if these variances are granted for the lot, and later, since the board created the lot, they have to grant variances for the house. That is why this board suggested to the planning commission and council to change the zoning code. This is a block instead of a lot, because it was obvious that it could not be a useable lot. The house is not an issue at this time. Miss Gasper stated that initially she spoke to Mr. McDernott in the Engineering Department who stated he thought the lot could be subd.ivided. She clarified for Mr. Koberna that she bougb.t the house two years ago in December, and she was aware of the shape of the lot at that time, but she did think that there might be potential for selling the additional land. R. Gomersall moved to grant the request for J. and K. Builders for the following variance to split off sublot "B" from property at 29723 Bretton Ridge Road: a 1900 square foot variance for area of lot; a 71.5 foot variance for average depth of lot; a 28.5 foot variance for average depth of rear yard. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Sections 1135.05(a)(1), 1135.05(a)(3) and 1135.08(a). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney. Roll call on motion: Gomersall, Maloney, Koberna, Purper, and Miller, no. Motion failed to pass. Variances denied. 14. Bobbv D. Cutler, 5928 Barton Road Request for hearing (1123.07) appealing the Bu.ild.ing Commissioners determination that a specific type of fencing is not permitted (field fencing and plastic fencing). Withdrawn from board of zoning appeals October 1, 1997. Note: If the above appeal is granted, the following is requested. Request for variance (1123.12). Request 1 foot height variance for fence. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02(f-1). Chairman Gomersall called allinterested paities before the board. The oath was admiuistered to Mrs. Gutler, neighbors Mr. and Mrs. 'Klesta,lVlr. Kaufhold and Councilman Nashar. Mr. Gomersall advised that the members had received pieces of the plastic fencing. Mrs. Cutler verified that the deer fencing would be 100 foot off the road. Law Director Gareau clarified that this new product was apparently considered like and similar to a field fence by the Building Department, so the first question should be, is this a fence as opposed to a netting, if the board finds that this is a like and similar use to a fence, then the board can consider a variance for the height. If it is a netting it is not a fence. He noted that a net could be put over a cherry tree. Mrs. Cutler maintained that the Bu.ilding Department's interpretation that this is a fence is not correct and if it is a net she does not need a permit. Assistant Building Commissioner Rymarczyk pointed out that she is considering this a barrier, which would prevent anything from going through, so it would be a fence. Mrs. Cutler explained that 7