Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 6, 1984 PAGE 4 <br />Horvath, Nay. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. <br />11. Frank and Cheryl Novak, 6006 Winding Creek Lane " <br />Request for variance (1133.13). Request 8' rear yard variance for addition. <br />Violation of Ord. 62-33, Section 1163.01. <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath <br />was administ'ered to Mr. and Mrs. Novak and M. Midugliotti, the contractor. <br />This is a wide pie shaped lot. It was clarified that the house is at an <br />angle and the rear set back is figured on the mean so set back of house con- <br />/? forms without enclosure; uncovered patio can be built in rear set back. Mr. <br />?/( Bugala stated that addition could be built within the rear building line of <br />house. Mr. Novak stated that this would make enclosure too small. They <br />will be extending patio only 1' around perimeter only to••add footers to con- <br />form to code. Mr. Bugala stated that the builders are putting these patios <br />in and they know that they cannot be enclosed without a variance. He would <br />like this changed. Mr.,.Remmel does not feel this would obstruct the view <br />of any adjacent neighbors. C. Reuunel moved to grant the 8` rear yard var- <br />iance per the discussion, seconded by E. Graves, and unanimously approved. <br />Variance granted. <br />- 12. Donald and Sandra Johnson, 3144 Clague Rd. <br />Request for variance (1133.13). Request 1' variance for fence and variance <br />for solid fence (not 90% open) on corner 1ot. Violation of Ord. 62-33, <br />Section 1151.04-H. <br />Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath <br />was administered to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson who explained that when they get <br />financing they will install a swimming pool which•will require a 6' fence. <br />Since this is a corner lot a solid fence would not be allowed on the corner <br />side of the lot. The Board does not want to grant a variance for the height <br />on the promise that a swimming pool will be installed later. When a pool <br />permit is applied for only a variance_for a solid fence would be needed. <br />Mr. Remmel stated that the $oard is reluctant to grant.a variance for a <br />solid fence on a corner lot. The Johnsons pointed out that there would be <br />90 feet from the end of the fence to the corner. Building Commissioner <br />Gundy advised that a solid fence could be installed in a line with the side <br />building line. This is not satisfactory to the Johnsons since fence would <br />be immediately adjacent to patio which is only 6' wide, and landscaping <br />adjacent to patio would have to be removed. The Board suggested that this <br />case could be continued until a signed contract is submitted for a pool, <br />and pointed out that a legal 6' fence (90% open on corner side) could be <br />built with the swimming pool with no variance. Chairman Remmel advised <br />the Johnsons that they could come back but there would be no promises that <br />they would get a variance for a solid fence where they wanted it, but maybe <br />some compromise could be worked out. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson requested that <br />case be continued. Case continued. <br />13. Edward Matuszak, 5474 Whitehaven <br />Request for variance (1133.13). Request 16' vari.ance for-length of:privacy <br />screen. Violation of Orcl. 62-33, Section_1151.04-G.