04/04/2016 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Allain, to grant as wrftten 16-5452; Paul Accordino; 25747 Butternut Ridge Road to build a new garage wi4h the following variance: 1. A 258 sq. ft. variance for the maximum floor area of a garage; code permits 750 sq. ft., applicant shows 1,008 sq. ft., Section 1135.02(c)(1). Motion passed 5-0. 16-5175; Caleb Zimmerman; 6190 Fitch Road Representatives: Caleb Zimmerman, owner; Thaddeus Smith, resident Reconsideration for 90 inch fence that was denied 2/1/16. BZBA granted reconsideration on 3/7/16. The following variance is requested: 1. A 60 in. variance for fence in the front yard; code permits 30 in., applicant shows 90 in., Section 1135.02(f)(1). Note: Homeowner was previously denied for a 72 in. height variance and a fence not 50% open per docket 15-4932 - 12/7/2015. The owner was required to remove this fence or apply to Common Pleas Court within 30 days of this denial, which has not been done. Ms. Wenger stated that the zoning is One Family Residence A. In December 2015, the applicant made application to the BZA for a 102 inch (8.5 foot) solid wood fence in the front yard above natural grade, which was unanimously denied. The applicant reduced the request and appeared before the BZBA in February 2016 with a request for a 90 inch (7.5 foot) fence in the front yard above natural grade, which would meet the 50% open requirement, which was also denied. The applicant's request for reconsideration in March 2016 was approved by the BZBA. It appears that the request for variance is unchanged since the February hearing. The proposed fence is 90 inches above grade, where code would allow for a 30 inch fence in the front yard. It meets the requirement for 50% open. Mr. Zimmerman stated that the purpose of the fence is to provide safety and to reduce noise. The fence would reduce anxiety caused by working in the yard and fear of cars coming off of the road. Mr. Smith reviewed the landscaping plan he submitted, which included bayberry plants, smoke bushes, barberry, red maple trees, hydrangea climbing vines and wild flowers, in addition to the existing pine trees. Ms. Wenger pointed out that residential landscaping is not regulated by the zoning code and the commissioners should look at the fence itsel£ Ms. Meredith pointed out that no changes were made to the fence or the variances requested. Mr. Zimmerman stated the fence would be hidden by the landscaping. Ms. Sabo asked if the fence could be shorter but Mr. Zimmerman did not think so due to the plants they selected. Mr. Gareau reviewed the news channel information that was submitted and said it was extraneous to the case. Mr. Allain stated that the applicant wanted to keep the fence to save money since a permit was not pulled initially, but they have not justified the height. Mr. Papotto acknowledged the effort put into the landscape plan but the same goal can be achieved without the fence. Mr. Raig did not see how the fence would help with noise or safety. Mr. Raig moved, seconded by Mr. Allain, to grant as written 16-5175; Caleb Zimmerman; 6190 Fitch Road to build a 90 inch fence with the following variance: 1. A 60 in. variance for fence in the front yard; code peranits 30 in., applicant shows 90 in., Section 1135.02(f)(1). Motion denied 0-5. C0MMUNICATIONS 7