03/07/2016 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. gothic post cap would add 6 inches to the posts and make the fence a total of 42 inches tall so the variance request requires a 12 inch variance, not 6 inch. Mr. Raig moved, seconded by Ms. Meredith, to grant a variance as amended for 16-5321; Mary Izzo; 4573 Ranchview Drive to build a new fence with the following variance: 1. A 12 in. variance for the maximum height of a fence in the front yard; code permits 30 in., applicant shows 42 in., Section 1135.02(f)(1). Motion passed 4-1, Mr. Allain voted no. COMMUlvICATIONS 16-5175; Caleb Zimmerman; 6190 Fitch Road Representatives: Caleb Zimmerman; Thaddeus Smith, resident Request for reconsideration. Mr. Zimmerman stated that Law Director Gareau informed him of the steps to take in order to be reconsidered. His letter was submitted to elaborate on the medical disability. The fear of cars coming off of the road leads to anxiety, which is reduced by having the fence. A few landscaping design ideas were submitted. Noise would be reduced by adding the landscaping. He submitted pictures of other fences in the city he believed were similar to his proposal. Mr. O'Malley stated that the reconsideration is to address new evidence or a new proposal. The applicant has a right to apply for an appea130 days after the written decision has been approved. Notice needs to be made to make neighbors aware of a new meeting taking place. A new and separate application would have to be submitted showing substantially different evidence. He pointed out that the applicant has not indicated a change in the height variance requested. Mr. O'Malley brought up the Americans with Disabilities Act and that the City Zoning Code does attempt to reasonably deal with the disabilities of the residents. The federal law does not require the City to stand down on their regulations just because a disability has been raised. Mr. Smith stated that no further description of the disability would be discussed other than the doctor's note presented at the previous meeting and the current letter. Ms. Meredith stated that new evidence was not presented by the request for reconsideration. Discussion over whether new evidence has been submitted. Ms. Sabo clarified that the pictures of other properties' fences does not present anything about the applicant's property. Mr. Smith sta.ted that they want to prevent taking the fence down. Mr. O'Malley stated that it is interesting that the news interviews were brought up but privacy law issues have been raised and the applicant is asking the BZBA commissioners to call the doctor, which would be in violation of the HIPAA laws. He suggested that the applicant clarify if they would be asking for the 60 inch variance for the next submission. Mr. Allain clarified if the applicant is allowed to modify the variance request, which they would need to do in order to be reconsidered if new evidence is not presented. Mr. Papotto suggested the applicant look at trying to fmd a solution to his problem that conformed with code. Mr. Papotto pointed out that the cross pieces of the fence would not do much for noise control. Mr. Smith stated that the fence would not control the noise but is more for a focal point. Mr. Allain stated that even though suggestions were made, the requirements for granting a variance would still need to be met. Mr. Raig