Laserfiche WebLink
Board to vote on the current appeal as provided. Mr. Myers expressed confusion over relocating <br />the home on the lot and shared his concern over limiting the homeowner's use of their front yard <br />area if the home were shifted towards to street. Mr. Mis stated that his provided drawings were <br />not exact and were interided as a rough drawing. <br />Mr. Mackey noted that the neighbor to the south will likely not have any substantial views <br />blocked by the home. He also noted that the other homes on the block also have varying setbacks <br />from the front and rear property lines. Mr. Allain asked about the livable floor area, with Mrs. <br />Almady confirming that the livable floor area is 1,759 square feet not including the garage. This <br />was confirmed as a code-compliant livable floor area. Mr. Raig stated that he did not foresee any <br />issues when he initially viewed the property, but he understand the concern presented by <br />neighbors. He added that rear-yard variances will likely be required regardless of how the house <br />is moved on the site. Mr. Papotto noted how difficult the property dimensions appear to be due to <br />the irregular shape. Mr. Allain stated that while the house is sited well on the land, he is unsure <br />about the setback distance requested. <br />Mr. Allain moved, seconded by Mr. Papotto, to grant the following variances for 17-10097; <br />Robert & Cindy Almady; 3946 Shelley Drive: <br />1. A 14.19 ft. variance for rear yard setback; code requires 50 ft., applicant shows 35.81 <br />ft., Section 1135.06(d). <br />Motion failed 1-3. <br />Allain, Papotto, Mackey: No <br />Raig: Yes <br />17-10126; Martin Clancv; 6015 Wild Oak Drive <br />Representatives: Martin and Susan Clancy, Owners <br />Proposal consists of a screen wall. The property is zoned One Family Residence-B. The <br />following variances are requested: <br />1. A 2 ft. variance for a screen wall over 6 ft. in height; code permits 6 ft., applicant shows 8 ft., <br />Section 1135.02(d)(3). <br />2. A variance for a lattice screen wall; code does not include lattice as a permitted fence type, <br />applicant shows lattice screen walls, Section 1369.02. <br />3. A variance for exposed posts; code does not allow, applicant shows exposed posts for a <br />lattice screen wall, Section 1369.04(i). <br />Mr. Aspery stated that he applicant is seeking variances pertaining to fence height and <br />composition for their property at the corner of Wild Oak Drive and Brook Circle. From a zoning <br />perspective, a 2 ft. variance is sought to permit an 8 ft. fence along a portion of the applicant's <br />rear yard; 6 ft. is the maximum allowable fence height. The applicant is also seeking to replace <br />lattice screen walls around their existing deck, the west side of their home and existing trash <br />enclosure. As written, the Building Code does not specifically provide for lattice-type screen <br />walls, thereby requiring a variance. Lastly, a vaxiance is requested for exposed posts; code <br />requires that screen walls be installed so that all posts and structural members are covered with a <br />finish material to within at least twelve inches but no closer than eight inches of grade unless <br />treated for ground contact. <br />Mr. Clancy withdrew his request for the first variance, citing his neighbor's desire to sell his <br />property as a factor in his decision. He further explained his desire to replace the lattice around <br />2