07/02/2018 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zart said the shed placement would not impede water flow. She would move the shed so it does not need the variance for the rear yard setback. She did not want to make the yard feel smaller with a solid wood fence and the proposed fence would look better than a chain link fence: Mr. Russell stated that the Building Department opposes the proposal and the Engineering Department opposes building the shed in the easement. Mr. Aspery stated that the Planning Department agreed that the shed should not be permitted to be installed in the stormwater easement. He believed the applicant should either seek to meet the fence requirements for the fence located in the easement or propose an alternative plan that meets Engineering's requirements for adequate drainage. Ms. Zart stated that the fence would be 11 feet off of the property line so it would not be in the sewer easement that is 10 feet off of the property line. Mr. Papotto said the fence and shed would be built over the sewer easement and if they needed access, the entire structure would have to be taken down. Mr.' Raig said the shed could be built on the property where it is not in an easement and he was not in favor of the fence variances. Mr. Allain moved, seconded by Mr. Papotto, to approve the following variances as amended for 18-11487; Sabrina Zart; 28165 Gardenia Drive: 2. A variance for an accessory structure located in an easement and drainage swale; code does not allow accessory structures in recorded easements or in a manner than hinders the free flow of storm water, applicant shows an accessory structure in a storm sewer easement and drainage swale; Section 1135.02(C)(6). 3. A variance for a fence that is not identified as a permitted fence type; Section 1369.02. 4. A variance for a fence that has exposed posts on both sides; Section 1369.04(c). Motion denied 0-4. 18-11523; Tim & Rochelle Martin; 25197 Deerfield Drive Representatives: Timothy Martin, owner Proposal consists of a fence on a corner lot. Property is zoned C-One Family Residence. The following variance is requested: 1. A variance for opacity and height of a corner lot fence; code permits a fence that is at least 50% open and that does not exceed 30 inches in height in the side and rear yards at the street line of a corner lot; applicant shows a solid fence 5 feet high in the side and rear yards of a corner lot; Section 1135.02(D)(3). Note: Setback of the fence from the street line cannot be determined from the submission. Mr. Aspery said the applicant is proposing to install a five foot high board-on-board fence in their side and rear yard. Setback distances were not clear in the initial submittal, so the applicant will need to confirm the setback from Dawn Drive, as code currently requires a minimum setback distance of 20 feet. Mr. Martin stated that a fence would not impair anyone's view due to the shape of the property. Mr. Aspery reviewed the code section and stated that the Engineering Department would not oppose the fence in the easement as long as a gate is installed. Discussion regarding the code requirements for fence setbacks on a corner lot. Mr. O'Malley stated the height and openness does not go against the code but the setback is unable to be determined. Mr. Martin stated that the fence would be installed two feet inside the sidewalk. Mr. Papotto asked about the tree on the property, Mr. Martin said it is on his property but is in the easement. Mr. Martin stated that the fence would be installed inside the tree. The gate would be installed to provide access to the easement if needed. The applicant has three dogs and the fence would be