Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 m Minutes Boerd of Zoning Appea.ls - Jiine 22, 1967 <br />4. Appeilantr Pau1 S. Wasniak Subd.ivision. Request for variance a.t <br />build3ng line on S,L Iand SIL 2 Porter Road in YaSniak <br />Subdzvision. <br />Invviolation of Ord.ina.nce -462-33, Section 1157.01 whzch <br />requires a minimum wiclth of° $0 feet in P-n A residential <br />district. <br />Present: Paul TiTasniak, <br />Mr. Wasniak explained that no side 1.3ne variance was needed but tha-E due <br />to irregular wid.th of lots, a variance at the buil(3ing line vas reouired. <br />Mrs. Eian moved that a vari.ance of 2.349 on S/L I and 4.364 on S.IL 2 be <br />granted; seconded by Mrr.?_Robertsr,an-d°'passed. . <br />5. Appellant: Albert E. Schultz, 6725 Nanc,y Drive. ReciUest to erect <br />a. six foot fence along part of siele a.nd rear -arqnerty <br />line. ` <br />Vio]a.tion of Ordinance -#62-33, Section 1151,0G, -OhAch <br />requires that a fence is not to exceed .four feet in <br />height along sic?e or rear property line. <br />Present: Mrs. Schultz. <br />Mrs. Schnltz e-pl.ained that for privacy purposes they wiGhec3 to nlace an <br />L-shaped 6' redwood baslretweave fence around the pa.tio. It would consist <br />of seven eight foot sections. Mrs. Eian moved to gran•t a. 2' va.r. iance in <br />fence height; seconded b- <br />y Mr. Byers ancl passed. <br />6. Appellant: Ba.uer Development, Inc.. Request for a nine foot rear <br />yard variance on S/L 138, 6193 PaiG?.ey 3?rive; P, five foot <br />rear yard variance on S/L 29 R.evere Dxive and a'twentv two <br />foot rear yard variance on S/L 22 Revere Tlrive, <br />Violwtion of Ordinance 162-33, Section I163.01 Tahich <br />reauires that the mina.mum depth of the rear ya.rcl be fift,y <br />feet. <br />Present: Mr. Bauer and Mr. Profusek <br />Mr. Bauer stated that in order to bui ld ca.rnparab7_e homes on the lots <br />in auestion, the rear yards could not meet with minimum renu?rements. <br />Mr. Prof.isek mentioned a c?rainage ditch running b-tween S/L 22 a.nc? his <br />Fitch Road proper'ty and stated that he coulantt see how a, home coUld <br />possibly be situated on said Iot. After much discussion the boar.d clecidecl <br />to hear the remaining cases scheduierl a.nd then to.recess te?nnora.rily for <br />the purpose of personally inspecting the lots in auestion. <br />7. Appellant: Robert F. Thompson, 22999 Stoneybrook Drive, RenUest for <br />a two foot rear yard eariance for f,he nUri-)ose of a.n <br />addition to existing famil,y room p?us a new rcreenec7 porch. <br />Viol.ation of Orc7.inance ;!162-33, Secti-on 1163.01 Fihich <br />requiras that the minimum renth of the rear ,yard he fiftv <br />:E'eet. <br />` :i ,