Laserfiche WebLink
BOARD OF ZOZdING APPEALS - I0/I/69 - Page 2 <br />4. Appellant: Margaret Franz9 24390 Vincent Drive - Reo1uest to install roof over the <br />existing-patio lIf from detached oarage. Request is in violation of <br />Ordinance #62-3:' section 1151.04 wtLich requir.es a minim_um of 201 between <br />detached garage znd dwelling. <br />Present: Mr, and Mrs. Franz Mrs. Fr. anz e?rplained that they canft enj oy the patio since it is in the sun 0.I1 day Iong. <br />They -?rish to nrovide a shady spot for the children. The neighbors have no objections. Mr. <br />Lancashire moved to grant a 91 varian.ce to a.llow construction of roof over exi4ting patio. <br />Mr. Greene seconded the motion. Unani.mously nassed. <br />5. Appellant: Charles Pariano - Request to build o.ffices and a warehouse on Perrianent <br />Parcel,`233-6-I1 Bradley Foad. Lot is 771 wide and combined sid.e yard <br />wiciths would. total 371. Reciuest is in violation of Ordinance #62-33, <br />Sectiorz I194.03 which requires that the 5tzri of tY:e side yards in a limited <br />industry district shall total not less th.an 40' in width and Section <br />1I91+mo5 which requires a minimum Iot width in a limited industry clistrict <br />of 1001. <br />Pre.sent: Mr. pariano, Mr. Gieb (builder), Mr. Nestoff9 Mr. Cochran, Mr. and Mrs. Burzlaff, <br />Mr. Sapienza, Mr. Arcara <br />Mr. Pariano explaa.ned that there would. be no reprocessing of raaterials or manufacturing; <br />only storage of aluminun bars and special stairlles4 steeZ bar stack in addition to t1he <br />sma.ll off.ice. There wouZd be parking in front for 10 cars with the d.riveway izea.rly <br />centered on the Zot to eliminate closeness to surrounding residents. There would be no <br />trucks Iater than 5:00 P.M. and the surrcundings would be .landscaped. Neighbors stated <br />that they have no objections. Mr. Davis moved to grant variance on the lot width of 77' <br />and a side,pard variance of 31. Ivir. Lancashire seconded the motion. Unanimously passecl. <br />6. Appella.nta AIIan Gercling' 25139 Chase Drive - Request to buiZd detached garage 31 <br />from side lot line. Request is in vialation of ardinance #62-33, Section <br />1151.04 which reauires that a detached garage be a minir.ium of 5' fron any <br />Iot line. <br />Present: Mr. Gerding <br />Mr. Gerding stated that in order to ra-ke the swing easils into the garage, he tiras reo,uesting <br />to build his garage 31 from the sid_e lot line. There is a swale in the rear 3nd the garage <br />can not be moved furthur back. Boaxd members stated that this is a cornmon problem ir_ this <br />area,. Mr. Greene moved to grant a 21 sideline variance. Mr. DaviS seconded tlae notion. <br />Una.nimously pa.ssed. <br />7. Anpellant: Joseph 7.'urza, 26507 Fairiax Lane. F'tiequest to erect 6' f'ence along rear <br />Iot line. R.equest is ir_ violation of Ordinance #62-33' Section 1151.04, <br />fence not to exeeed 41 in height. <br />Presentt Mr. and T'Trs. Turza <br />i'Rre Tur.za ex7-%lained that they ha.d originally requested permission to put 51 cyclone fence <br />along side lot linss ancl the 6e fence along rear line. They have droppecl the request for <br />51 fence a.nd wil1 use 41 accorcling to the code. However, since the lot slopes bacY, tney <br />jnish to erect 61 stocka.de fenee a.lor_g the rear 'Lor privacy purposes. Their contention <br />mas that 41 would be sufficient if it wasnlt for the 21 drop from their natio to rear <br />lot lir_e. Mr. Connors, r_eYt door neighbor, had no objectionso Board mem.bers suggested <br />a windbreak 3.nstea.d of a 6" fence aI.ong thP lot line, lir. and Mrs. Turza did not feol <br />that this woulc7 solve their problem. Mr. Greene moved to con'tinue the case for the <br />purpose of board members personally inspecting the area. Mr. Davis seconded the notion. <br />IInanir:iously passed.