07/18/1968 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B09RD OF ZOATING APP:F.9LS - Ju1:Sr 18, 1965 - Page 2 .' - - - Mr. Tasef£ expla.ined that there is a two story apartTaent house, tennis courts, parking. and recreation area directZy behind his home. The fence wou1.d help to block some of tfie lights and Tould prevent persons from cutting through his yaxd. He would instaI.l a cedar stockade fence a].ong 1001 at the rear of hia property. There is approximately a drop of 12A towards the drainage ditch in rear so that a lower fence would rivt serve the pnrpoae. He has no privacy in the ?rd as it is now, Mr. Grecne moved to grant the vaxiance; seconded by Mrs. Eian and passed. 4. Appellant: William H. King, 25246 Butternut Ridge Road. Request to erect a 6' fence a.long side property-line. Request is in violation of Ordinance #62-33, Section 1151.0I., fence not to exceed 301, in height from building line to street Iine and must be 50% open, fence from building line to rear property line not to exceed 4' in height. Present: Mr. & Mrs. Ki.ng, Mr. Repko, Mr. Bouman., Mx. Ellis Mr. &Mrs. King explained that thei'r::homez:sits mucll furthtir back from the street than does the one next door to them. They face an unfinished addition on the side of the home next door that is covered with tar paper and tha.t has remained in this state for a Iong period of time. It wa.s pointed out that certai.n homeowners in the vicinity had not been rsotified. Mr. Greene moved to postpone the hearing until the additional parties are notifiecl; seconded by Mr. Forcellini and passed. 5. Appellant: Blenn Cook, 4709 Carsten Lane. Request tn erect a 6' fence across rear of property. Since the a.ppellants were unable to attend2 the case was continued to the next meeting. 6. Apnellant: Lydia Kammiller, 23806 Frank Street, Request to erect a room addition at rear of house with a 7' rear yard variance. Request ia in vio7.ation of Ordinance #62-33, Section 1163.01 which requires a 501 rear yard. Present: Mrs. Kammiller and her son, 14r. Ti.nics, Mr. Kyle' Mr. Barnes, Mr. Lourens, Mr. BoehLier, Mr. ScheibZe Mrs. Kammillerls son explained that they need ad.ditional space for everyday Ziving and that he wishes to add a 201 extension. It would have a peaked roof and bZend with the rest of the house. A petition was presented signed try the neighbors in attendance that objected to the variance. It was suggested that an alternative plan might be worked out so that a variance would not be necessary. Mrs. Kammiller withdrew her request. 7. Appellant: Gail Spurlock' 1,.725 Canter.burg Road. Request to erect a 61 -F'ence along rear of property.. Request is in violation of Ordinance #62-33, Section I151.04, fence not to exceed 41 in height. Present: Mr. and Mrs. Spurlock Mr. Spurlock explwined that their rear yard is adjacent to a group of retail stores including a lounge bar and that they need the fence for privacy. TheJ have a swimming pool in the yard which adds to the problem. The owner of the commercial property refuses to erect a fence. The fence would be a redwood basketweave type. Mr. Greene moved to grant a varia.nce for a 61 fence.to buffer the rear lot line from connnercial property; seconded by Mrs. Eian and passede