08/21/1968 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BO.ARD OF ZOAIIIJG APPEALS - August 21,. 1968 - Page 2 . Mro Spisz explained that they wisl2 to cover the existing patio -with- the same roof as i:s on the house. It would serve as protection from the sun. Mrs. Andrews and Mre & Mrs. Snexke stated that they ha.ve no objections. Nlx. Rober{;o moved to grant a 64 garia.nce; seconded ly Mr. Greene and passed, 50 Appellant: Paris Penix, Jr.' 6074 Porter Roada Request for varir.nce on present double wire link fence 41 high acrass rear of property which f'rants on Decker Road. Rea_,uest is in violation af Orclinance 78r62-33., Section 1151.04., fence along street line no to exceed, 30" in height. Present: Mr. & Mrs, Peni.x? Mr. & Mrs. Ma.rsett, Mro & Mrs. KlukLr I't was pointed out that on 3/6/6$ the Zoning Beard granted a variance for Mr. Penix to erect a 41 chain link fence at the 7.ocation in questian, g wire link fence was in.stalled and Mr. Klukar vo3.ced h3s objection to the fenceo Mr. Penax presented a petition sigried by Eliza.beth Brady' Earl Brady, Susaruza Schuller9 ZATm, E. Smith' Wm. Mandeville, John McNa].ly, Gearge I,ambing, George Marsett, Martin Cassano, Ronald ZTene1t, Howa.rcl Link and Jack Phillips stating that they had no objections ta the fence that wa.s instaIled. Mrs. Fenix- pointod out t1Bt all of the neighbors except for three who are on vacation ancl -the owners of vacant lots in -the area had sign.ed the petition. Mr. Klukar stated that it is a barnyarci typo fence and that he does object to it. A brochure from Sears was presented shot,ri.ng the vaxivus types of fences and it was pointed out that the one installed was their second most expensive fence -alZ alwni.num that nevelc rusts or requires painting. Mre Greene stated that in granting the vari-anee in March., the Board hc?.d felt that a1.Z persons are-entitled to a rear yard arj.d that he felt the va,riance ha.d been given for a fence - not necessarily a chain.-link £enceo He a.ISO poirited out that ha.d their rear property line not fronted on Dbcker Roa.d, no va-riance would have been necessaxy a.nd that they could have put up any t3Tpe 'Lence they desiredo Sinee it is the appearance of the fEnce an.d_not the height that seaas to be causing the problen' it wa.s dECided that Board members shc,uld persorlaI.ly inspect the fence. Mr. Roberts moved to continue the case to the next n.eeting; seconded by Mr. Greene and passed. 6. Appellant: Walter G. McDonald, 28574 Magnolia Drive. Request to erect a bP fence a].ang rear lot line. Request is i.n violatian of Ordina.nce 7#62-33, Section I151.04, fence not to exceed 1+° in height. Present: Mr. McDQnaZd, 14r. Lengel Mrv McDonaId statecl that in oreler to hicle the view of a messy backyard. to the rear of his lot, he wi.shos to install a conventional wood fence. Mr. Lingel stated that he ha.s. no oluj ections. Board membexs felt that they would Iike to personally inspect the area in question and Mr. ForceIlisii moved that the case be cont?nued ta the next meeting; seconded bg Mr..Greene and passed. 7. Appellant: Victor E. Botoman, 4580 Andorra Drive. Request to erect a 61 basketweave f ence along a portion of both sides of the prvpertyo Request is in violation of Ordina.nce #62-33, Section I151.0%9 fence not to exceed 4e in height0 _ Present: Mrs. Scanlon9 Mr. Linden' Mrm Stryczra.y' i2r. Biasa.ni, Fence contractor The fence contractor representing Mr. Bvtoraan explain.ed that he wishes to erect the fence for privacy purposes around his patio and pool. Heioht of fence would be graduated so that it would gradua.lZy become 41 around perimeter of yard. Since NIr. Botouian s-Tas on va.ca•tion and could not be present to clarif'y c?uestions eoncerning the installation of the fenee9 Mr. Forcel3ini tmoved t€a continue the ease to the next meeting$ seconded by Mr.